Show Me And I’ll Believe

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Thanks for proving my point, Pyro. ....

Omigod!! I proved your point!!!
Dammit, I HATE it when that happens!!!

[blazer2000x]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I assume you were excepting the Biblical authors from this statement.

I thought somebody would say that. I believe in the Bible because of God. Not the other way around.

And as for the bycicle - motorcycle analogy: no, it will never accidentaly create a motorcycle. There are too many varying materials. A new shift that just made a metalic click would not help the bike survive. So it would disappear. There is no part of a bicycle that can turn into a gas tank, if a bike for some reason did have a swell in the metal frame, it would make it heavier and less durable (not to mention more costly to produce). There is no way that could be filled with liquid of any sort. By adding the race you did what I was trying to do with the costumers buying the bikes, trying to artificiate natural selection. I don't see how you think an internal combustion engine with throttle control and safely expelled exhaust would develope. The bike just doesn't have the parts or the materials to make them out of. The same goes for nature. I'll prove it to you. Let's say we make a computer program that generates an image and copies it pixel by pixel. Then we make a random number generator to imitate an accidental mistake. If the RNG spits out a specific value, the computer will randomly change the color of the pixel it' currently copying. Now get a second image, and set the computer to conmpare the copies with that image. If two pixels ever match, the computer will lock that pixel in the copy, so it will not be randomly changed (this is against nature). Now set the program to copy the image at one billion times per second. If were trying with say, an 8x8 pixel image, and using only sixteen colors, you have 16384 possible overall image choices. So with or without the image comparison, you will have at least one exact replica in less than half a second, but that's if the entire image can change instantly, you in reality have lets say a 50/50 chance of one pixel changing. So now you have 2097152 chance. So it'll take you still under a second. But instead of having sixteen colors, lets say you have the normal, 32 million. And lets say your image is instead 320x200 pixels. Now you have a one in 65,536,000,000,000,000,000 chance of getting a replica. At one billion images per second, that means it'll be at least 65,536,000,000 seconds
(758,518.518 days) before you'll have a really good chance of succeding. But, of course, life doesn't replicate at that speed. Let's say instead you had one image per every five minutes, and a 1/50 chance of a single pixel changing. Not only that, but the image won't "lock" pixels when they're similar to the other image, because it has no image to compare it to. You should seriously try this out. With sixteen colors and a 100x100 image that you draw. No locking, but as soon as it matches the output stops. You can speed up the replication to however fast you want, but at the end it calculates how long the image would have taken to form at a rate of one per five minutes. You get billions of years for something that simple. I think I'm definetely going to make this...
Anyway, even if evolution were posible by pure trial and error, it still would take a lot longer than any age even remotely possible on earth's timescale. The number is probably in the hundred digits range. I'll make the program if I can and let you know. (not sure if my computer can run such a complex program for so long without crashing). I'll even upload it and post a link if it works.
Maybe this will convince you. (Or hey, maybe it'll change my mind!)
Hmmm... That post really took a turn I didn't expect.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by blazer2000x

Let me write an analogy now. If a builder makes millions of bycicles, he is bound to make mistakes while building them, right? Lets say that if a mistake makes a bycicle sell better than others, it will be incorporated into the design of all following bycicles. Give it infinity if you want to make changes like this, but you'll still never get a motorcycle.

An interesting analogy.

It assumes, however, that traits never cross species lines. In biology, this appears to be untrue – all complex, multicellular organisms contain genes from simpler organisms, suggesting that they were at some point “assembled” from them. Organisms such as human beings incorporate genes from invading viruses with every generation.

An alternate analogy along these line: would an inept blacksmith/cooper who made butter churns, wheel barrows, and spinning wheels, ever accidentally make a motorcycle?

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by blazer2000x

...And as for the bycicle - motorcycle analogy: no, it will never accidentaly create a motorcycle. ...The bike just doesn't have the parts or the materials to make them out of. The same goes for nature. ...Let's say we make a computer program that generates an image and copies it pixel by pixel. ...Now you have a one in 65,536,000,000,000,000,000 chance of getting a replica. ......even if evolution were posible by pure trial and error, it still would take a lot longer than any age even remotely possible on earth's timescale. ... That post really took a turn I didn't expect.

Well, let's take another turn that we may or may not expect! Isn't that where the fun is?

I like your response. It shows that you have not only intelligence but a certain rational integrity that I respect. Even if you disagree with me.

1. The bike to motorcycle analogy. "The bike just doesn't have the parts or the materials...". You are correct! Now, do we just give up and stop there? No. We compare the bike analogy with the pre-biotic or biological reality. Are molecules the same as bicycles? No. Are amino acids in DNA the same as pieces of metal or pistons? No. Well, then perhaps our problem is that the analogy is not accurate enough to model the complexity of the puzzle we are trying to solve.

2. "if evolution were possible by pure trial and error..." In my years of debating evolution, I think that this is the number one most difficult barrier for most people to get over. The fact is:

Evolution does <<NOT>> depend on pure trial and error.

Therefore, any analogy that DOES depend on pure trial and error does NOT model evolution, and cannot be used to prove or disprove evolution. It's like trying to explain the human digestive system by saying, "okay, let's say that this Tinker Toy set is like the stomach and intestines...". Sorry, you're not going to get very far with that one.

3 "it still would take a lot longer than any age even remotely possible ..." It is always possible to build an analogy or construct an explanation so that the solution will take the wrong amount of time, or to argue that it will or won't. I would like to suggest (in the spirit of kindness) that you do NOT know how long (your understanding of) evolution would take. Fact is, we do not yet have sufficient facts to calculate that sort of thing.

What we do have are some boundary conditions. We know the Earth started forming about 4.3 BY ago. We know that the earliest fossils appeared less than 1 BY after the Earth formed. So, as a "boundary condition" we are safe in assuming that Life can go from "zero to sixty" in about 1 BY.

Do you have any idea how LONG one thousand million years is?

Evolution doesn't work on pure trial and error. It works on something that's more akin to trial and error PLUS competitive selection PLUS accumulated compound interest. And as the results accumulate, they alter the environment--they change the rules of the puzzle! That's complicated. That's "rocket science" as far as most people are concerned.

You are absolutely correct. Simple analogies appear to contradict the possibility of evolution. But that is not cause to give up. The challenge is to tighten your belt, have another cup of coffee, and create a more complex and flexible analogy that does a better job of accurately modeling the "rocket science" of pre-biotic chemistry over 1 BY, with every liter of shallow water on the planet being a separate "experiment", with the results of those experiments accumulating over time in the manner of compound interest.

Evolution seeks not to prove the way it happened, but to demonstrate that there was a way for it to happen, without resorting to the "supernatural".

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

...Evolution does <<NOT>> depend on pure trial and error.

Therefore, any analogy that DOES depend on pure trial and error does NOT model evolution, and cannot be used to prove or disprove evolution.

Pyro- It seems to me you've got to either fish or cut bait here. If you are going to hang in the mutation-drove-speciation camp, then you got to offer some evidence that gets the speciation odds down to something reasonable. That discussion is over in the thread here:

http://hypography.com/forums/biology...html#post86851

Do keep in mind that if you get the odds down too low, and identify a host of assumed external conditions that make speciation likely, you need to also specify the liklihood for the external conditions. Otherwise, you are essentially a Creationist. I bet that frosts your cookie.

Fact is, we do not yet have sufficient facts to calculate that sort of thing.

What we do have are some boundary conditions. We know the Earth started forming about 4.3 BY ago. We know that the earliest fossils appeared less than 1 BY after the Earth formed. So, as a "boundary condition" we are safe in assuming that Life can go from "zero to sixty" in about 1 BY.

Do you have any idea how LONG one thousand million years is?

Actually, I have some idea of that. But please keep abiogenesis separate from discussions of evolution. They are (by definition) unrelated.

Certainly, in terms of statistics and probability, any calculations that relate to generation of genetic material denovo are wholly different than generation of new proteomic material after the availability of the first prokaryotic genome.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Pyro- It seems to me you've got to either fish or cut bait here. ...please keep abiogenesis separate from discussions of evolution. ...any calculations that relate to generation of genetic material denovo are wholly different than generation of new proteomic material after the availability of the first prokaryotic genome.

Bio, I appreciate your point. Right now, all I have TIME to do is cut a little bait here and there. Yes, I will keep them separate, though Daniel C. Dennett, in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" points out that there is no point in doing so. I'll play by your rules.

And if you're gonna keep throwing around words like proteomic and denovo, you're gonna hafta frost a hell of a lot more than my cookie!!!!

[Michaelangelica]

Fascinating discussion.
I was just referred to it by "Contemplate the next revolution in science".
I'd like to make two quick comments:-

1 Natural Selection does not work at a bacterial or probably at the replicating-aminoacid/RNA? level. Genetic codes can be swapped so evolution can be faster. You don't have to wait for a random mutation to be selected. Bacteria are very promiscuous

2. You can't expect to find 4-5MYO fossil remains of virus, bacteria and amino acids. They are too fragile to survive BUT we do have 3.5 million year old stromatolites (colonies of Bacteria) in Shark bay W.A. They are still alive and building bigger and taller structures.
(Perhaps they know something about sea levels that we don't know? )