How We Are Evolving

[Quantum Windbag]

Which is why I keep trying to point out you are focusing on different things. You only see the other parts of the equation don't change. I'm ONLY looking at the results, which are changed and constrained. They are what's important, even if the equation is recursive.

You cannot just look at the results and claim they are not random though, you have to understand how the results are reached. Ultimately, the results are all that matter, but I like to understand as much of the process as it is possible for me to grasp.

Actually that's exactly how they work: all the results of random mutation are "put to the test", so to speak. The environment "chooses" among the various results of the results of mutagenesis. Or, using synonyms for the words you just used, "nature selects" among the results, thus the term "natural selection". This is an order of operations issue.

Here is where we get into trouble. While you are correct that natural selection is (essentially) the final part of the equation, it is still part of the equation. Natural selection is more like loading a dice, it skews the results rather than actually picking among the results.

And if it doesn't? Again, this comes back to perspective. Rolling a die can yield one of 6 results in a random manner. What if that same die comes up split equally between 3 or 4 every time? Is it "random"? Well, probably with respect to 3s and 4s, but certainly not with respect to the 1 to 6 context expected from dice.

That would not be random, a d6 numbered from 1 to 6 is not going to land on only two sides, even if it is a loaded die. If it does, that proves that someone has managed to circumvent the laws of both physics and probability, and no one I know can do that, except God. Fortunately He rarely gets involved in things like that.

So you say coin flips will average out in the long. What if it's still heads 10 flips later? Is the coin still producing random results? Still heads 100 flips later? One million? At what point do we say "hmm, maybe these aren't random results after all"? I'm sure you're well aware of the equations that examine that VERY question, and in fact we can set limits based on what we wish to determine as statistical randomness with respect to n and limits, and what we want to reject as random.

Yes. I know it sounds like it is bucking probability, but streaks are often seen when recording coin flips, die rolls, and cards. Ultimately, they average out though, which is what makes them predictable. Those equations you are talking about all prove that, as well as the simple fact that random events have never proven to be non random.

Humans love to look at those streaks and think that they are not random, but they are still random.

In biology, p values are generally set at 5%. Below that point, we claim statistically significant outcomes.

I recommend you read this, specifically noting the very first line on the page.

True randomness only exists if you look at events like counting cosmic rays or the noise spikes in radio static. All random number generators that use seed numbers are psuedo-random rather than truly random, but they are still statistically random. Evolution is at least statistically random.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

How many alligators "ski"?

You cannot just look at the results and claim they are not random though, you have to understand how the results are reached. Ultimately, the results are all that matter, but I like to understand as much of the process as it is possible for me to grasp.

And that's great and academic of you, but we don't HAVE to understand how the results are reached to draw conclusions about the results. I don't need to understand the physics affecting a dice roll to play yatzee.

Here is where we get into trouble. While you are correct that natural selection is (essentially) the final part of the equation, it is still part of the equation. Natural selection is more like loading a dice, it skews the results rather than actually picking among the results.

What's the difference? Think about it a bit. "Picking" is only the further-constrained end of "skewing".

That would not be random, a d6 numbered from 1 to 6 is not going to land on only two sides, even if it is a loaded die. If it does, that proves that someone has managed to circumvent the laws of both physics and probability, and no one I know can do that, except God. Fortunately He rarely gets involved in things like that.

Put magnets on the 3 and 4 side, roll on a metal table, and it will always come up 3 or 4. The environmental pressure only allows for certain outcomes, regardless of the path it took to reach those outcomes. But you hit the nail on the head in the first sentence of that quote: that would not be random. But again, even if it's less skewed, so that the dice can sometimes land on a different number, it's STILL not random with respect to 1-6.

I know it sounds like it is bucking probability, but streaks are often seen when recording coin flips, die rolls, and cards. Ultimately, they average out though, which is what makes them predictable. Those equations you are talking about all prove that, as well as the simple fact that random events have never proven to be non random.

That last sentence states a defined attribute has never been proven to be the opposite of the defined attribute. Well, yes. "False" has never been proven to be "True" either. But you're still going back to the idea that "they average out though", when evolution DOESN'T. The coin is rigged. Doesn't matter how many times you flip it thinking the next one will change, it's going to be heads again.

If you go to a casino and find a streak on dice rolling, you'd be correct in that people may mistake it as non-randomness. But if you use my magnetic die, it really IS non-random.

True randomness only exists if you look at events like counting cosmic rays or the noise spikes in radio static. All random number generators that use seed numbers are psuedo-random rather than truly random, but they are still statistically random. Evolution is at least statistically random.

No, no it's not. I'm not talking about the difference between random vs pseudo-random. I'm talking about the first line of that page: "A numeric sequence is said to be statistically random when it contains no recognizable patterns or regularities". Evolution is FULL of recognizable patterns and regularities. Heck we engineer our antibiotics AROUND those regularities.

In the end, you keep getting stuck on the equation. Pick a number. Any random number. Square it. Add the original number. Divide by the original number. Add 6. Subtract your original number. Multiply by 6. Bam. Your number is the meaning of life.

Getting non-random results from random starting numbers is possible. Good luck trying to apply terms like "conscious" to natural selection though.

 

[Charles_Main]

I have become less patient and more crotchety.

Does that count as evolving?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

According to "Human Evolution is Not Over" article in Scientific American, we supposedly, all "Evolved" from a common ancestor that migrated from Africa 50,000 years ago.

Now white skin is supposedly part of "natural selection" to "living with less sunlight" and that explains why we have difference races on the planet. However, one small problem is that these African descendants that migrated from Africa, must have turned white the second they left Africa but when they settled along the equator, but never bothered turning black again.

Seriously? This makes sense to anyone?

We have this marvelous "naturally selected" gene to handle harsh sunlight and we just plain forget to reinstall it when we migrate back to the equator. Was this designed by Microsoft?

Then again, what if you entire notion of history is fucked in the first place? What if human civilization is far older than we currently suppose?

Virginia Steen-Mclntyre dug at Hueyatlaco, Mexico and found human civilization dating back 250,000 years. Oopsies.

There's an iron mine in Ngwenya, Swaziland that's over 40,000 years old and over 100,000 tons or iron ore was removed by some ancient civilization. That's a full 40,000 years PRIOR to our "Discovery" of how to extract iron from the ore

There are underwater ruins all over the world, that speak to human civilizations, flourishing long before this stupid timeline people are stuck on.

How's this? In the mid 19th century 2 separate ships sailing across the Atlantic found an enormous Island that recently rose to the surface and promptly suck back under. But while it was on the surface, they retrieved artifacts indicating the land was once in inhabited.

March 1882, The S.S. Jesmond

The response from the Smithsonian is usually to lose whatever anomalous artifacts are handed to them. At the beginning of the turn of the century, a former employee confessed that one of his assignments was to dump the artifacts in the ocean every so often.

 

[Charles_Main]

but never bothered turning black again.

Clothing would explain that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And that's great and academic of you, but we don't HAVE to understand how the results are reached to draw conclusions about the results. I don't need to understand the physics affecting a dice roll to play yatzee.

Are you trying to equate the theory of evolution with playing Yahtzee?

In order for a scientist to draw a valid conclusion he has to not only understand the results, but as much as possible about how those results came about. If we simply look at the world as it is we can easily draw the conclusion that the sun revolves around the Earth.

What's the difference? Think about it a bit. "Picking" is only the further-constrained end of "skewing".

The difference between a die that rolls 6 more often than 1, and a die that doesn't have a 1 at all. One is a normal result of applied environmental factors, and the other takes a deliberate action that removes some of the factors.

Put magnets on the 3 and 4 side, roll on a metal table, and it will always come up 3 or 4. The environmental pressure only allows for certain outcomes, regardless of the path it took to reach those outcomes. But you hit the nail on the head in the first sentence of that quote: that would not be random. But again, even if it's less skewed, so that the dice can sometimes land on a different number, it's STILL not random with respect to 1-6.

The environment only allows for survival. If we truly only had a choice between survival and death then you could claim that natural selection did remove the random factors, but that is not what actually happens.

We have viruses, that some people still debate are alive at all, yet they can get into a cell and rewrite the genetic code to produce more viruses.

We have various single celled organisms that survive through various means. Some of those single celled organisms work in concert with a host through symbiosis, like the e-coli bacteria that live in our intestinal tracts. Others actually survive by destroying their hosts, like ebola bacteria that kill anyone they come into contact with.

We have multi-cellular organisms that have chosen multiple routes to get to survival, the major classifications of which fall into reptiles, mammals, and insects.

All of these different routes were either random, the end of various random events that arose from the same progenitor, as Darwin theorized, or they are the result of an inevitable chain of events that happened because a certain number was plugged into the original equation from which life arose.

Life is either random, or deterministic. I don't know which side of that you fall on, but I know where I come down.

That last sentence states a defined attribute has never been proven to be the opposite of the defined attribute. Well, yes. "False" has never been proven to be "True" either. But you're still going back to the idea that "they average out though", when evolution DOESN'T. The coin is rigged. Doesn't matter how many times you flip it thinking the next one will change, it's going to be heads again.

If you go to a casino and find a streak on dice rolling, you'd be correct in that people may mistake it as non-randomness. But if you use my magnetic die, it really IS non-random.

How does evolution not average out?

We do not know enough about how the universe that works to claim that bilateral similarity is the inevitable result of any combination of chemicals that give arise to life. There are fish that have evolved to have two eyes on one side of their head, is that because evolution somehow canceled out their random chance of getting eyes on both sides, or is it because evolution is actually random?

Is bilateral similarity the easiest, and thus the most likely, result of the equation, or is it the least likely, and we just got lucky?

Why did almost every type of vision develop at about the same time? Is it because eyes are inevitable? If so, why did some fish evolve without eyes? Why did other fish develop light generation capability that enhanced their ability to see in waters that never received light?

How does bacteria manage to thrive in deep water volcanic vents that would kill everything else on the planet? How did some life evolve to breathe sulfates? Live in water so salty that it would kill anything else?

Life seems to exist in every environment on Earth. Is that because life is inevitable, which would mean that we will eventually find life everywhere? Or is it because Earth hit the jackpot?

Until you can answer all of these questions, and hundreds or thousand of others, you cannot sit looking at the results, life as it exists, and insist that you know enough about it to draw conclusions.

No, no it's not. I'm not talking about the difference between random vs pseudo-random. I'm talking about the first line of that page: "A numeric sequence is said to be statistically random when it contains no recognizable patterns or regularities". Evolution is FULL of recognizable patterns and regularities. Heck we engineer our antibiotics AROUND those regularities.

In the end, you keep getting stuck on the equation. Pick a number. Any random number. Square it. Add the original number. Divide by the original number. Add 6. Subtract your original number. Multiply by 6. Bam. Your number is the meaning of life.

Getting non-random results from random starting numbers is possible. Good luck trying to apply terms like "conscious" to natural selection though.

No, it just looks like it is. Just because something looks ordered, it does not mean it is.

Here is an example of random events that appear to create patterns.

Skip to about 1:20 if you don't want all the details about how they did this.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBM3IT0BMA4"]YouTube - Generation of Random Fractals[/ame]

You have to remember that ultimately everything we observe and learn is filtered through our brain, and it shows us what it expects to see. Which is why some people saw canals on mars for hundreds of years, and others didn't.

 

[JBeukema]

That's right, windbag, there are no genotypical differences between human populations. SNPs don't exist, paternity tests are bullshit, and The Journey of Man/The Human Family Tree was all a big conspiracy

 

[JBeukema]

Now white skin is supposedly part of "natural selection" to "living with less sunlight" and that explains why we have difference races on the planet. However, one small problem is that these African descendants that migrated from Africa, must have turned white the second they left Africa but when they settled along the equator, but never bothered turning black again.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/130491-the-colour-code.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...tiontitle-whats-the-origin-of-white-skin.html

We have this marvelous "naturally selected" gene to handle harsh sunlight and we just plain forget to reinstall it when we migrate back to the equator. Was this designed by Microsoft?

How, exactly, do you think evolution works?

 

[antagon]

skeptics often use speciation as some kind of line, ignorant to the ambiguity of it and taxonomy altogether. it isn't significant to anything because it is just an organization tool. evolution is fundamentally about the mechanics and implications of change, no matter how it's organized.

We weren't actually arguing about evolution itself, as we both believe it exists, just something about populations of fruit flies. It seems that mating behaviour can change enough it a few generations that one population would no longer interbreed with the other, even though they were able to do so genetically. I thought the fact that they could breed proved they were the same species, and he thought that the thought that they do not proved they aren't.

In the end we both realized that neither of us had enough solid ground to stand on, but only because someone else finally stepped in and pointed out that neither of us was using the term species properly. If the experts ever figure out what the terms actually mean, and explain it in a way I can understand, I will again be willing to take a stand on the issue and defend it.

i recognized that between you guys.

the point where speciation is introduced is gray. i think a model where breeds are recognized lends best to situation like the fruit flies. i remember the fuzzy antennae flies wont fuck with the others or something, and this sort of drift should constitute some recognized change. over time in isolation, it will indeed differentiate them more convincingly. there's also the issue of consistency with taxonomy. some creatures are classed together over phenotypical observations, others over their capacity to produce fertile offspring, etc. it makes laying that line between kin and divergent the grounds for an argument initself. if critters would die off rather than breed, they are not the same critter, even if that is driven by some behavioral mechanics, rather than genetic. that's just my opinion though. should that constitute breed-diffrentiation like a st. bernard and a pomeranian? at least. if you were a fruit fly laureate, i would think that would be a crucial distinction to draw. step back to the biologist or zoologist level, and it is a gray line again.

 

[antagon]

However, one small problem is that these African descendants that migrated from Africa, must have turned white the second they left Africa but when they settled along the equator, but never bothered turning black again.

Seriously? This makes sense to anyone?

get your GED, holla back.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

However, one small problem is that these African descendants that migrated from Africa, must have turned white the second they left Africa but when they settled along the equator, but never bothered turning black again.

Seriously? This makes sense to anyone?

get your GED, holla back.

I know. It requires thinking it through rather than just spewing back what you think you know.

In the short span of 50,000 years we totally evolved away the successful black gene and it didn't remain, not even as a recessive gene? Even when we relocate to the equator on anther continent.

Hmmmm? Why doesn't that sound right?

 

[antagon]

However, one small problem is that these African descendants that migrated from Africa, must have turned white the second they left Africa but when they settled along the equator, but never bothered turning black again.

Seriously? This makes sense to anyone?

get your GED, holla back.

I know. It requires thinking it through rather than just spewing back what you think you know.

In the short span of 50,000 years we totally evolved away the successful black gene and it didn't remain, not even as a recessive gene? Even when we relocate to the equator on anther continent.

Hmmmm? Why doesn't that sound right?

it sounds right to me, however, i have greater than high school numeracy and could tell what's different between 60,000 years and 600.

snap up a GED and holla back.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

According to "Human Evolution is Not Over" article in Scientific American, we supposedly, all "Evolved" from a common ancestor that migrated from Africa 50,000 years ago.

Now white skin is supposedly part of "natural selection" to "living with less sunlight" and that explains why we have difference races on the planet. However, one small problem is that these African descendants that migrated from Africa, must have turned white the second they left Africa but when they settled along the equator, but never bothered turning black again.

Seriously? This makes sense to anyone?

We have this marvelous "naturally selected" gene to handle harsh sunlight and we just plain forget to reinstall it when we migrate back to the equator. Was this designed by Microsoft?

Perhaps you missed the countless times I've stated that evolution does not just give what you want, which is why we don't fly, or shoot lasers from our eyes, or have 12 hands.

Evolution is NOT an engineer who just uninstalls and installs genes as needed. If bacteria lose genes for antibiotic resistance, they DIE when they get exposed to antibiotics. They CANNOT just pluck the genes their ancestors had out of thin air at the crucial moment.

You STILL don't understand how evolution works, and you are still dumb enough to keep drawing conclusions about it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

According to "Human Evolution is Not Over" article in Scientific American, we supposedly, all "Evolved" from a common ancestor that migrated from Africa 50,000 years ago.

Now white skin is supposedly part of "natural selection" to "living with less sunlight" and that explains why we have difference races on the planet. However, one small problem is that these African descendants that migrated from Africa, must have turned white the second they left Africa but when they settled along the equator, but never bothered turning black again.

Seriously? This makes sense to anyone?

We have this marvelous "naturally selected" gene to handle harsh sunlight and we just plain forget to reinstall it when we migrate back to the equator. Was this designed by Microsoft?

Perhaps you missed the countless times I've stated that evolution does not just give what you want, which is why we don't fly, or shoot lasers from our eyes, or have 12 hands.

Evolution is NOT an engineer who just uninstalls and installs genes as needed. If bacteria lose genes for antibiotic resistance, they DIE when they get exposed to antibiotics. They CANNOT just pluck the genes their ancestors had out of thin air at the crucial moment.

You STILL don't understand how evolution works, and you are still dumb enough to keep drawing conclusions about it.

Bacteria NEVER lose their resistance, not in a million generations; Once resistant, forever resistant.

But mankind had this superior gene for handling sunlight and lost it in a geological eye blink, then never got it back.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

get your GED, holla back.

I know. It requires thinking it through rather than just spewing back what you think you know.

In the short span of 50,000 years we totally evolved away the successful black gene and it didn't remain, not even as a recessive gene? Even when we relocate to the equator on anther continent.

Hmmmm? Why doesn't that sound right?

it sounds right to me, however, i have greater than high school numeracy and could tell what's different between 60,000 years and 600.

snap up a GED and holla back.

You're not making any sense, I mean more so than usual

 

[antagon]

where does cfrank derive these phakts? alligators haven't evolved in 300 million years... bacteria NEVER loose resistance.

 

[antagon]

I know. It requires thinking it through rather than just spewing back what you think you know.

In the short span of 50,000 years we totally evolved away the successful black gene and it didn't remain, not even as a recessive gene? Even when we relocate to the equator on anther continent.

Hmmmm? Why doesn't that sound right?

it sounds right to me, however, i have greater than high school numeracy and could tell what's different between 60,000 years and 600.

snap up a GED and holla back.

You're not making any sense, I mean more so than usual

this is why getting through high school biology and grade school math could be so valuable in an adult discussion, frank. 'the successful black gene' is your mythology which has nothing to do with how skin color is determined in humans. the 600 years since whitey has descended back into the tropics is 1/100th the time whereby selection for pale skin was affected. the expectation that they should snap back to black inasmuch time is indicative of low attainment in the sciences, and poor deductive capacity on your part.

this is why i encourage you to get a GED, frank. you'll feel proud of yourself, and you could share logical conclusions which are based in the facts of life instead of your fantasy world.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Are you trying to equate the theory of evolution with playing Yahtzee?

In order for a scientist to draw a valid conclusion he has to not only understand the results, but as much as possible about how those results came about. If we simply look at the world as it is we can easily draw the conclusion that the sun revolves around the Earth.

No. Yatzee is yatzee. You can use any dice game you'd like. I just picked one to show that I don't need to understand the underlying physics of how dice land to understand and use the results in a game. Which brings me back to the underlying point: in direct distinction to your idea, scientists do NOT need to understand the underlying mechanisms of results to draw valid conclusions about them.

We have NO CLUE how many of our medications exactly work today, yet we can prescribe them anyway due to the certainty of the expected results. We have NO CLUE how the underlying mechanisms of the brain work, yet the fields of neurology, neuroradiology, and neurosurgery are alive and thriving. And this is all because valid conclusions can still be drawn based on the reproducible nature of the results, REGARDLESS of the underlying mechanisms.

What's the difference? Think about it a bit. "Picking" is only the further-constrained end of "skewing".

The difference between a die that rolls 6 more often than 1, and a die that doesn't have a 1 at all. One is a normal result of applied environmental factors, and the other takes a deliberate action that removes some of the factors.

And again I ask: what's the practical difference of results? If a die rolls 6 one million times to every roll of 1, the 1 is still important in the statistics. In the real world however, that 1 is useless. It's zero. It's as if it wasn't on the die in the first place. Because you seem to keep forgetting that every time the die is rolled, the probability of rolling a 1 keeps decreasing. It approximates zero.

So this once again comes back to misapplication of statistical ideas onto a biological system. Whereas statistics cares about the very small outliers, biology has a cutoff after which the outliers are seen as..... outliers.

The environment only allows for survival. If we truly only had a choice between survival and death then you could claim that natural selection did remove the random factors, but that is not what actually happens.

What are the other choices between survival or death?

Life is either random, or deterministic. I don't know which side of that you fall on, but I know where I come down.

Mathematic computer modeling is either random or deterministic. You keep going back to the two extremes where either there is a static equation that leads to a specific outcome, or if that doesn't happen, things must be random. That's simply not true. Lack of pre-determination does not equate to randomness. Your next response, for example, is not pre-determined, but I would bet it's going to maintain the same stance you've been having, which is not random. For all I know, you could change your mind and agree with me, but that still doesn't make your answer random or deterministic.

How does evolution not average out?

Let's make our dice evolutionary. Every roll, the "numbers" on each die change based on a random mutation. For simplicity's sake, let's say that half of our mutations are lethal and they represent 1-3, and the other half allow the organism to survive whatever environment it happens to be in and represent 4-6. We roll a million dice under these constraints, and "kill" all the ones with 1-3. After the first roll, how many dice are expected to be left? What numbers do they show? Will they EVER show 1-3? Well no, because the end point is defined as 4-6 only. It will never even out.

Someone in another thread posted this, which also illustrates the point:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker[/ame]

The watch that gets formed in the end is not pre-determined. In fact they are very different from one another between runs of the simulation. But the results are not random either. Non-random, non-determined variability.

Life seems to exist in every environment on Earth. Is that because life is inevitable, which would mean that we will eventually find life everywhere? Or is it because Earth hit the jackpot?

This is a great question.

No, it just looks like it is. Just because something looks ordered, it does not mean it is.

Here is an example of random events that appear to create patterns.

Skip to about 1:20 if you don't want all the details about how they did this.

And yet this example "evens out". It's radially symmetrical. For every pattern that stretches out in one direction there is an equal and opposite pattern. This only goes so far as to be the equivalent of random mutation. And when they placed a very small filter on the fractal, the change that took place was not random. I would go so far as to say that every time a pencil were to be placed on the fractal at the same angle, it would produce the same greater result, while maintaining variability within the visible portions. This can be seen in your video at 2:12 in your video, when the pencil is still. It's a non-random result with randomness within it. But again, I'm looking at the big picture result, and you seem to only focus on the static in between.

What do you suppose would happen if half the fractal were blocked?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Bacteria NEVER lose their resistance, not in a million generations; Once resistant, forever resistant.

That's actually completely false, which once again shows you have no clue what you're talking about.

In the absence of antibiotics, the bacteria that lose extra genes for resistance can replicate faster, giving them a reproductive advantage. Even if that weren't the case, without an environmental pressure to continue selecting for antibiotic resistance, the resistance gene could still undergo mutation to lose resistance.

Long-term starvation-induced loss of antibiotic resistance in bacteria
Antibiotic Resistance in Reverse
Bacteria and Antibiotics
http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/about_antibioticres.shtml#5

Some of those links are for lay people, and others are the scientific literature you've been demanding and yet not reading anyway.

Once again this is showing that, contrary to your made up belief, evolution is only about survival advantages, and NOT molecules consciously willing themselves to produce genetic upgrades.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

it sounds right to me, however, i have greater than high school numeracy and could tell what's different between 60,000 years and 600.

snap up a GED and holla back.

You're not making any sense, I mean more so than usual

this is why getting through high school biology and grade school math could be so valuable in an adult discussion, frank. 'the successful black gene' is your mythology which has nothing to do with how skin color is determined in humans. the 600 years since whitey has descended back into the tropics is 1/100th the time whereby selection for pale skin was affected. the expectation that they should snap back to black inasmuch time is indicative of low attainment in the sciences, and poor deductive capacity on your part.

this is why i encourage you to get a GED, frank. you'll feel proud of yourself, and you could share logical conclusions which are based in the facts of life instead of your fantasy world.

600 years since whitey descended back to the tropics? Are you serious? Is that a joke?

Your timeline is totally 100% fucked