Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

SavedToo -> Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/13/2008 5:03:50 PM)

The theory is based on reproduction. Reproduction increases competition for resources. Because of this, reproduction is the very thing you don’t want to do if you want to ensure your survival.

For example, my cat had several kittens. Each kitten is a burden to mom’s survival. Mom has to spend gobs of resources on entities that will never help her own survival and will compete in a direct way for the same food resources. If evolution were true, then it is against mom’s best survival interest to have kittens. Yet mom was born with the necessary instincts and plumbing to have them.



Method -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/13/2008 5:13:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SavedToo

The theory is based on reproduction. Reproduction increases competition for resources. Because of this, reproduction is the very thing you don’t want to do if you want to ensure your survival.


The fossil record is full of species who did not reproduce. Guess what? They are no longer around.

The theory of evolution is based on the survival of genes as part of a population. The care and production of the next generation ensures the survival of the population.



Jhud -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/13/2008 5:17:02 PM)

quote:

Yeah, I don't think it is a particularly strong argument against evolution.


Though, it would seem quite odd that genes that wanted to survive would produce kittens at all, when the most effective mechanisms of propagating genes is a bacterium.



hellohellohi -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/13/2008 5:18:07 PM)

SavedToo--

cool,
I liked what you said. I will think about it more.

I think of natural selection as a piece of logic, a syllogism

1) Traits are heritable.
2) Some traits confer relative reproductive advantage within a population.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore) Some traits will increase in proportion to others in a given population.

Now, I don't claim that all traits are heritable. For instance, the question of protein-folding seems to be a crucial step in the process of transforming hereditary information (DNA) into macro traits, which has not been explained. Therefore, certainly, the theory of evolution is not a done deal.

Very interesting to consider what happens when scarcity becomes so great that reproduction itself is inadvisable.

I hope we can continue to talk about this!



Method -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/13/2008 5:21:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Though, it would seem quite odd that genes that wanted to survive would produce kittens at all, when the most effective mechanisms of propagating genes is a bacterium.


Multicellular organisms are the oddball. Bacteria and other unicellular organisms do make up the bulk of Earth's biomass. I think it is correct to state that bacteria are the most effecient form of life, but multicellular organisms continue to flourish despite their ineffeciencies.



gluadys -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/13/2008 5:36:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Now, I don't claim that all traits are heritable. For instance, the question of protein-folding seems to be a crucial step in the process of transforming hereditary information (DNA) into macro traits, which has not been explained. Therefore, certainly, the theory of evolution is not a done deal.


Evolution is a done deal. Our understanding of some biological features is imperfect. We may not be able to explain protein-folding at present, but when we have it figured out, it is much more likely to clarify some puzzles than to overturn the theory of evolution.



hellohellohi -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/13/2008 5:46:04 PM)

I think that's bias. I prefer to let the experiments speak for themselves. I just think there is more to biology than hereditary information contained in organic molecules. That could be understood as the means to another purpose. Why couldn't we view redox reactions as the "goal" of biology rather than reproduction? Both are fallacious. Therefore, I would just rather ask specific questions and eschew stupid teleological metaphors.

I don't think its a flaw or a point of shame to say evolution is not a done deal -- it is proper scientific modesty that naturally lends to further inquiry rather than stasis. But maybe I say this because I have a strong emotional reaction to words sometimes?

I don't know... I'm just not criticizing evolution by saying its not a done deal. Human evolution was essentially my major in college. I felt like the people who wanted to say it was a done deal weren't anthropologists or biologists at all but just wanted to excuse something in their lives -- or, less sinisterly, just get a B and move on or something, rather than looking into the details. Maybe we could call it "B-list" science. I would prefer to say, there is much to learn, and there is every reason to continue the powerful explanatory mode that is the theory of evolution! Get it?



hellohellohi -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/13/2008 5:53:26 PM)

Talking about the likelihood of something that has not been properly STATISTICALLY, inductively investigated is just a poor way to go around. That is textbook bias. I'm not saying a scientist can't have hunches! But I like thinking about this stuff! I could give four ****s if someone tells me "it's a done deal" -- What, am I supposed to take your word for it? No, let the facts speak for themselves.



Jhud -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/13/2008 6:00:53 PM)

quote:

Multicellular organisms are the oddball. Bacteria and other unicellular organisms do make up the bulk of Earth's biomass. I think it is correct to state that bacteria are the most effecient form of life, but multicellular organisms continue to flourish despite their ineffeciencies.


Of course, and why evolution would produce a less efficient and less prolific organism than the one that proceeded it would seem to be one of those things evolution isn't very good at explaining.



swan42 -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/13/2008 6:07:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Multicellular organisms are the oddball. Bacteria and other unicellular organisms do make up the bulk of Earth's biomass. I think it is correct to state that bacteria are the most effecient form of life, but multicellular organisms continue to flourish despite their ineffeciencies.


Of course, and why evolution would produce a less efficient and less prolific organism than the one that proceeded it would seem to be one of those things evolution isn't very good at explaining.


This is an easy one. Bacteria and other single-celled organisms are prisoners of their environment. They cannot change their environment. Multicellular organisms on the other hand

1. are capable of increasing total efficiency by using specialized cells (the food cells are different than the structure cells and the immune system cells)
2. are capable of changing or maintaining their environment despite external forces that would kill single-celled organisms. (i.e. mammals generate heat and have cooling systems)



Jhud -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/13/2008 6:43:28 PM)

quote:

This is an easy one. Bacteria and other single-celled organisms are prisoners of their environment. They cannot change their environment. Multicellular organisms on the other hand

1. are capable of increasing total efficiency by using specialized cells (the food cells are different than the structure cells and the immune system cells)
2. are capable of changing or maintaining their environment despite external forces that would kill single-celled organisms. (i.e. mammals generate heat and have cooling systems)


Actually, bacteria regularly change their environment. In fact they often create their environment. And multicellular organisms are horrible at adapting to new food sources - if you don't believe me, try feeding a panda something other than bamboo, or a koala something other than eucalyptus.

Bacteria can withstand degrees of radiation that no multicellular organisms could survive.

Bacteria would be fine if every animal on the planet was dead - however if bacteria ceased to exist we would all die in a matter of days, perhaps hours.

Not so 'easy' is it?



swan42 -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/13/2008 7:33:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

This is an easy one. Bacteria and other single-celled organisms are prisoners of their environment. They cannot change their environment. Multicellular organisms on the other hand

1. are capable of increasing total efficiency by using specialized cells (the food cells are different than the structure cells and the immune system cells)
2. are capable of changing or maintaining their environment despite external forces that would kill single-celled organisms. (i.e. mammals generate heat and have cooling systems)


Actually, bacteria regularly change their environment. In fact they often create their environment. And multicellular organisms are horrible at adapting to new food sources - if you don't believe me, try feeding a panda something other than bamboo, or a koala something other than eucalyptus.

Bacteria can withstand degrees of radiation that no multicellular organisms could survive.

Bacteria would be fine if every animal on the planet was dead - however if bacteria ceased to exist we would all die in a matter of days, perhaps hours.


Wonderful! All true, but are not much of an argument against what I just said about multi-cellular organisms.

Pandas and Koalas do not represent entire class of multi-cellular organisms.
Bacteria cannot withstand exposure to extreme changes in temperature, salinity, pH etc.. but a Panda can live fine when swabbed with a little alcohol or have their fur cleaned with vinegar and I don't see much radiation these days unless we cause it ourselves.

You asked for some reasons, I provided.



gluadys -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/13/2008 9:40:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
I just think there is more to biology than hereditary information contained in organic molecules.


Well, no. There may be more to life, especially human life, than hereditary information contained in organic molecules, but since biology is the study of that very thing, I wouldn't say there is more to biology.


quote:

I don't think its a flaw or a point of shame to say evolution is not a done deal


I don't think it is ever a flaw to say that a scientific theory is incomplete, provisonal and subject to change in light of more information. But I think we also have to recognize that when most research in a field of science is into the details how the mechanisms work, when the principal premises are the foundation on which new information is built, then, as a whole, the theory is a "done deal".

We will learn more and more about how evolution happens, and solve mysteries about it that we haven't fathomed yet. We may even find limitations to the working of evolution a la ID. But the basics are not going to be undone. Even in a major paradigm shift, evolution is likely to be subsumed into a new paradigm rather than discarded. Much as Newton's ideas were subsumed into Einstein's theories rather than overthrown as erroneous.




quote:

I felt like the people who wanted to say it was a done deal weren't anthropologists or biologists at all but just wanted to excuse something in their lives -- or, less sinisterly, just get a B and move on or something, rather than looking into the details. Maybe we could call it "B-list" science. I would prefer to say, there is much to learn, and there is every reason to continue the powerful explanatory mode that is the theory of evolution! Get it?



Even if true, this is an irrelevant ad hominem

quote:

No, let the facts speak for themselves.


Precisely.



hellohellohi -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/14/2008 11:19:24 AM)

quote:

But I think we also have to recognize that when most research in a field of science is into the details how the mechanisms work, when the principal premises are the foundation on which new information is built, then, as a whole, the theory is a "done deal".


That's basically what I was saying. Evolution is a powerful explanatory tool from which to launch inquiry.

I also agree with:
quote:

We will learn more and more about how evolution happens, and solve mysteries about it that we haven't fathomed yet. We may even find limitations to the working of evolution a la ID. But the basics are not going to be undone. Even in a major paradigm shift, evolution is likely to be subsumed into a new paradigm rather than discarded. Much as Newton's ideas were subsumed into Einstein's theories rather than overthrown as erroneous.



However, I think it is incorrect to say:
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
I just think there is more to biology than hereditary information contained in organic molecules.



Well, no. There may be more to life, especially human life, than hereditary information contained in organic molecules, but since biology is the study of that very thing, I wouldn't say there is more to biology.


Let's leave with our agreement above, but allow me to explain what I disagree with here. There are clearly other things to INVESTIGATE in biology other than the process of the change of heritable traits following competitive reproduction. I think evolution is a great and elegant way of approaching biology! i just think it is dull to say one can't ask other types of questions as a biologist! That is what I mean. And I suppose this is an ad hominem attack, but only if you feel offended personally.[;)] I am just concerned when people appear to be content with a halting of inquiry. I think the translation of genotype to phenotype for instance is a crucial one to understand how evolution actually works in real time. This is a crucial step between the premises of natural selection and its conclusions! Heritability! Just think of the "Lamarckian" (real time) changes that happen to the genotype of bacteria when they take up genes from the environment! Of course, this could be a subset of evolution -- a replacement for slower mutations. There are other traits which I am not so sure are genetically transmittable though, such as handedness. It seems an important line of inquiry! Indeed, evolution might eventually be understood exactly in the way that Newtonian physics is today. Nevertheless, it has and will do a heck of a good job propelling inquiry in biology. Get it?



gluadys -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/14/2008 12:12:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
However, I think it is incorrect to say:
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
I just think there is more to biology than hereditary information contained in organic molecules.



Well, no. There may be more to life, especially human life, than hereditary information contained in organic molecules, but since biology is the study of that very thing, I wouldn't say there is more to biology.


Let's leave with our agreement above, but allow me to explain what I disagree with here. There are clearly other things to INVESTIGATE in biology other than the process of the change of heritable traits following competitive reproduction. I think evolution is a great and elegant way of approaching biology! i just think it is dull to say one can't ask other types of questions as a biologist!


I don't think we are far apart. Coming to much the same conclusions from different directions. As for there being other types of questions, I think I would need to see the specific sort of questions you mean. Evolution so pervades biology that it is difficult for me to see how a question in biology would not involve evolution. But perhaps you have some ideas I haven't thought of.

I think too that you broached what I am getting at when you posted this in the thread ID is not science.

quote:

If the perspective of ID is having a healthy awe for complexity, science has difficulty in asking holistic questions, because experiments become impossible n larger and larger scales -- simply from a practical standpoint -- and it instead tends towards reductionism.


The theory of evolution is a large-scale theory, covering all of biology. As such it is not amenable to testing/questioning that deals with the theory as a whole. So each bit of research into evolution tests a sub-theory. How does DNA change? Was natural selection a factor in a specific change? Does adaptation to different niches lead to speciation? etc. etc.


quote:

I am just concerned when people appear to be content with a halting of inquiry.


I would be concerned about that too. It is not what I intended to suggest. I am just pointing out that the crucial inquiries into whether evolution occurs were done long ago and answered resoundingly in the affirmative. Current exploration is not directed to whether evolution occurs but to the myriad questions about how it occurs and what the specific history of various lineages was.

This kind of research, even when it provokes more questions than answers, is not the sort that would topple the theory of evolution as a whole---only generate a better understanding of evolution. And we certainly ought to continue the research into these questions. Such as this one that you raised:

quote:

I think the translation of genotype to phenotype for instance is a crucial one to understand how evolution actually works in real time. This is a crucial step between the premises of natural selection and its conclusions!


Not sure I understand what you mean by a crucial step between "the premises of natural selection and its conclusions". But it is certainly an important area of biologicakl research. I just think it is more about the means and methods of gene expression than about the theory of evolution or natural selection.

Could you explain why you think this has significant theoretical ramifications?



hellohellohi -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/16/2008 1:00:03 AM)

gluadys,


Yes, I felt that we were in agreement. I just didn't like the rhetorical phrase "done deal" being applied to science. Certainly one can understand the way in which such theories as evolution are a done deal for science, as we have more precisely discussed, but I bristle at its tone of finality -- an attitude if one should internalize it might lead to a general lack of curiosity... It's also silly for people lacking curiosity, if they exist, to seize on the equally true assertion, that evolution is not a done deal, to suggest it might soon go the way of phlogiston simply because they resent its apparent conclusions.

However, concerning its premises, or, specifically, natural selection's, which are simple enough: there may be some sub-premises that have been less adequately addressed on which the conclusion of the evolution of species is contingent.

Natural selection might be efficiently expressed as the syllogism:

1) Traits are heritable.
2) There exist traits that confer relative reproductive advantage within a population.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) The proportion of these traits (versus the others) will be greater within the population among succeeding generations.

These premises are probably acceptable to everyone. Therefore, the conclusion must be as well. It is even often accepted by staunch Anti-Darwinists that micro-evolution must be thus conceded.

However, it MIGHT be that some traits are not heritable. This IS nearly TOTAL speculation, but... I have read that "handedness" of organisms (understood as either direction of spiral symmetry -- I don't know how else to phrase that -- or left/right dominance -- bilateral asymmetry) does not appear to be definitely heritable or responsive to normal evolutionary exigencies. If one couples it with the present question of handedness of molecules, involved in protein folding and the structure of organic molecules -- right? -- one could ask whether handedness is not a deep feature of biological organisms that cannot be said to be secondary to evolutionary considerations. Not to say it would be primary either, but...? I don't have any special ideas about this. It just seems that as long as this "sub-premise" of protein folding between hereditary information (premise 1) and gene expression (premise 2), even the most obvious truth of natural selection -- I don't care to say "would be put into question," but it could be in for a nuance. I really don't care one way or another from an ideological standpoint. Just seems logical to me.

At the same time, I am interested in the "big" question of agency. Agency has not really been a questioned addressed by biology, but I believe it could be understood as a useful component of biological structures from an evolutionary point of view. If a constant challenge of organisms is that they are eventually predictable to an organism of greater evolved complexity and predictive/ computational ability, then an inherent indeterminism might be beneficial. What I am speaking of is the difference between appearing random (the pattern of which might be identified by a nervous system of greater computational power) and being truly random. Agency, perhaps, is the physical reality or "mechanism" behind this unpredictability. That is, agency might be random-action generation. This question, it seems apt to observe, may not pertain to something genetically encodable but which may be nevertheless definitive of a living organism.

Again, I'm not trying to undermine the TOE but rather supplement it and to encourage further as well as tangential questions.

Also, allow me to apologize for the ad hominem while also confessing that I got a 'B' in college bio. I suppose that means that it's true that I was trying to shame you if it was appropriate but that I can't really feel above anyone as far as any biologist as far as learning is concerned.

Basically, my protest is against accepting scientific authority "out of hand" rather than asking questions for oneself -- even if you end up asking some stupid questions, as I probably do! It's not that I believe you guilty of this, simply because you wanted to seize on contrary to may phrase "it's not a done deal" -- which can very well understand as you can now imagine -- I just don't mind making little jabs over the Internet just in case they are in order.

Proceeding on this line of thought, one might adopt a different tone toward skeptics of the TOE that can be described as one of patient dialogue, with the tacit goal of education. I'm not saying this is news to you at all, but to the extent that one CAREFULLY explains the obvious and even trivial truths of the TOE, the skeptics questions will merge seamlessly from indignant to scientifically becoming.


Aside from the above, I also believe it is inaccurate -- and perhaps this is only a semantic quibble -- to say that evolution is ALL of biology.

I agree that it is an excellent lens through which to understand biological diversity. However, diversity is not the only question of biology. Evolution is also what comes into play when one considers how biological organisms interact with contingencies involved in their inevitable deaths. But one can also consider organisms in "real time" -- what they do apart from the questions of "that they do this indefinitely, having developed ways of transmitting their life-patterns to successive generations." For instance, one could (philosophically, perhaps) consider what it was that the first organisms were up to BEFORE reproducing. Then, a subsequent question might be asked: what immediate advantage did reproduction confer? Proliferation -- strength of numbers perhaps? But before then, what were they doing? The answer is probably "redox reactions," as far as I know. Thus, it seems sensible to say "biology cannot be understood apart from redox reactions," substituting out "evolution" from a sentiment you seemed to express. Of course, there is no such thing as an organism that did not reproduce.

Perhaps organisms began by reproducing "mirror images" of one another rather than truly reproducing qua producing copies. This seems strangely relevant to the question I'd like to pose about handedness. But what would confer "advantage" in such a primitive competitive environment? Brownian motion? Just musing. I must admit I am an armchair biologist if one at all at the moment. Oh well.



gluadys -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/16/2008 7:16:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

gluadys,


Yes, I felt that we were in agreement. I just didn't like the rhetorical phrase "done deal" being applied to science.


I think it depends on the audience. In an audience of scientists, I suppose nothing is a "done deal". But in this type of forum, most skepticism is about the very concept of evolution as if we were still asking the questions of the 19th century.

quote:

However, it MIGHT be that some traits are not heritable. This IS nearly TOTAL speculation, but... I have read that "handedness" of organisms (understood as either direction of spiral symmetry -- I don't know how else to phrase that -- or left/right dominance -- bilateral asymmetry) does not appear to be definitely heritable or responsive to normal evolutionary exigencies. If one couples it with the present question of handedness of molecules, involved in protein folding and the structure of organic molecules -- right? -- one could ask whether handedness is not a deep feature of biological organisms that cannot be said to be secondary to evolutionary considerations.


You are confusing handedness with chirality. Kind of easy-to-do since "chirality" means "handedness". But the chirality of molecules is a chemical feature so it has nothing to do with heritability. And nothing to do with my cousin being a southpaw either.


quote:

What I am speaking of is the difference between appearing random (the pattern of which might be identified by a nervous system of greater computational power) and being truly random.



As far as I know randomness in evolution applies in three ways:

1. The when and where of a mutation occurring in a DNA sequence is unpredictable. This may or may not indicate something that is "truly random". Note that although individual mutations are unpredictable, many are statistically predictable. Just like the statistical probability of various poker hands.

2. Future environmental challenges to a species are largely unpredictable. Again this may or may not indicate something that is "truly random". The complexity of environmental variables is a root cause of much unpredictability here.

3. As a consequence of 1 & 2, mutations occur randomly with respect to fitness.

Since mutations occur in DNA and DNA is heritable, I am not sure that you are raising a genuine question about something not heritable.


quote:

Aside from the above, I also believe it is inaccurate -- and perhaps this is only a semantic quibble -- to say that evolution is ALL of biology.


Yes and no. One can certainly study a lot of biology without touching on evolution. But evolution is the principle theory tying all of biology together.

quote:

For instance, one could (philosophically, perhaps) consider what it was that the first organisms were up to BEFORE reproducing.


Before reproducing, they were not organisms. They were not alive. Without reproduction, one has only chemicals reacting chemically----no biology. If abiogenesis is natural, then one must have auto-replicating chemicals (RNA, DNA) before one can have organisms.

quote:

I must admit I am an armchair biologist if one at all at the moment. Oh well.



Me too. I've never studied enough biology to call myself a biologist.



hellohellohi -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/16/2008 8:35:32 AM)

quote:

quote:

For instance, one could (philosophically, perhaps) consider what it was that the first organisms were up to BEFORE reproducing.

Before reproducing, they were not organisms. They were not alive. Without reproduction, one has only chemicals reacting chemically----no biology. If abiogenesis is natural, then one must have auto-replicating chemicals (RNA, DNA) before one can have organisms.



Yes, I agree with that. But I was wondering what they were doing in their life cycle before reproducing. Then I suggested that perhaps it was first molecules that could self-replicate through a two step process of first inducing mirror image "copies," followed by exact copies which simply floated around haphazardly in the ol' proverbial primordial. It would be intersting to consider what "selective advantage" that some replicable molecules might have over others under such a meager evolutionary context. Movement, not to say, "motility", perhaps -- some factor affecting diffusion rates.

Yes, I didn't mean to confuse "chiralty" and left/right dominance. It is only interesting to point out that it is not certain whether EITHER are genetically transmissable or whether they obey normal evolutionary exigency in all cases. It may be that they ARE, but... the facts, as well as my knowledge of them, is sketchy in this area. Thanks for the correction though. It would also be interesting to consider if they are related -- such as spirals of the hair being correlated to being left-handed. Of course, I know some folks who seem to have left-handedness in their family, but that doesn't prove anything. It's been awhile since I actually looked at any scientific journals about this.



gluadys -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/16/2008 10:32:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Yes, I agree with that. But I was wondering what they were doing in their life cycle before reproducing.


Maturing? If they are not capable of reproducing, they do not have a life cycle.


quote:

Yes, I didn't mean to confuse "chiralty" and left/right dominance.


I don't know what the story is on right/left handedness in complex organisms. My caution on molecular chirality is that this is a physical property of the molecule and/or its components. This affects what other molecules it can be folded with as in the construction of proteins from amino acids. So it doesn't seem to be a genetic thing, but a matter of physical property. DNA can code for what amino acid is needed next in a protein, but it doesn't dictate the availability of right vs. left oriented amino acids. Rather, one will work and the other won't as the protein is constructed.

Natural selection will play a role as only cells with functioning proteins (and therefore the correct chirality in available amino acids) will reproduce.



hellohellohi -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/16/2008 11:54:32 AM)

quote:

DNA can code for what amino acid is needed next in a protein, but it doesn't dictate the availability of right vs. left oriented amino acids. Rather, one will work and the other won't as the protein is constructed.


Yes, I think that is interesting.


About this:
quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Yes, I agree with that. But I was wondering what they were doing in their life cycle before reproducing.

gluadys:
Maturing? If they are not capable of reproducing, they do not have a life cycle.


I meant considering what they are doing in moments before reproducing. I didn't mean some hypothetical evolutionary moment of organisms before they could reproduce. I agree there is no such thing. I meant only that it is interesting to consider characterizing the activity of biological entities within a broader context and aside from the fact that they reproduce. One might claim that redox reactions, as I was saying, are universal in living things. It could be viewed as a "means to an end," but I think it woud be equally true (equally fallacious) to say that reproduction is the means to the end of expanding the scale of redox reactions. That is an example of the type of creative thinking, not to say a paradigm shift of theories by any means, that could result from shifting one's rhetorical stance and mental set away from speaking of evolution and even reproduction as central. It is simply the philosophical question, "chicken or egg." Talking about life apart from reproduction is not possible, indeed, but it might be a subtle mistake to believe that reproduction is all that life does. I am just trying to think creatively. It may very well be that silicon-based life or what-have-you somewhere does not demonstrate redox reactions but nevertheless reproduces. However, if we were to build a self-replicating machine, would it then be alive? Are crystals alive because they are able to induce adjacent molecules to conform to their structural pattern? This is kind of like reproducing.

What I mean by "placing them within a broader context" above is one might ask what biology is from the perspective of a rock. Grant that a rock is indifferent to whether one bacteria is affecting it or a nearly identical copy of the bacteria, one could ask, simply, what does the bacteria do to the rock? This doesn't have anything to do with evolution except to say "reproduction is the eventual goal of whatever the organism is doing," but this is not precisely true -- it is only a metaphor to say that life has any goal. Get it?



swan42 -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/16/2008 2:55:31 PM)

quote:

hellohellohi
Yes, I didn't mean to confuse "chiralty" and left/right dominance.


quote:

gluadys
I don't know what the story is on right/left handedness in complex organisms.


The two sometimes occur at the same time. Gastropods have chirality and a dominant handedness.
Most gastropods have right-handed shells and a small minority have left-handed shells.



swan42 -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/16/2008 2:59:10 PM)

quote:

However, if we were to build a self-replicating machine, would it then be alive?


This question is no longer hypothetical. The answer is not alive.

First self-replicating machine makes an appearance
http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19826596.200-first-selfreplicating-machine-makes-an-appearance.html



Jhud -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/16/2008 5:29:19 PM)

quote:

Wonderful! All true, but are not much of an argument against what I just said about multi-cellular organisms.

Pandas and Koalas do not represent entire class of multi-cellular organisms.
Bacteria cannot withstand exposure to extreme changes in temperature, salinity, pH etc.. but a Panda can live fine when swabbed with a little alcohol or have their fur cleaned with vinegar and I don't see much radiation these days unless we cause it ourselves.

You asked for some reasons, I provided.


Interestingly, still wrong.

In fact you were the one who poster the thread "Bacteria Found Alive In Ice 120,000 Years Old" - how many vertebrates have been found alive in such conditions?

Or even revivable?



Jon_St3wart -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/16/2008 6:13:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Yeah, I don't think it is a particularly strong argument against evolution.


Though, it would seem quite odd that genes that wanted to survive would produce kittens at all, when the most effective mechanisms of propagating genes is a bacterium.


Non sequitur, genes don't have desires.



hellohellohi -> RE: Theory of Evolution fundamentally flawed (6/17/2008 9:38:36 AM)

gluadys,

Good point though:
quote:

DNA can code for what amino acid is needed next in a protein, but it doesn't dictate the availability of right vs. left oriented amino acids. Rather, one will work and the other won't as the protein is constructed.

"If it works, it works." Some come out "left," some come out "right" but the unusable ones are trashed perhaps? Isn't the case that some mirror image molecules prohibit normal functions thuough? I think it is interesting to consider whether something crucial -- in those veins -- is out of the hands of DNA, if it is the case (which it may not be) that chirality is not encodable. Thanks for helping with nuance though.

It would also be interesting if chriality of molecules could lead to larger scale chirality -- like the snails that I was pointing out, as well as someone else. Of course all organisms display chirality as far as I know, as a product of development. How is chirality in the macro determined? Very interesting question, if you ask me.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI