by cofty 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Adam - please try to stay on topic. I realise you could write an essay on 1000 convoluted reasons why your knowledge of Iron Age Hebrew culture is in fact the topic, but please refrain.-cofty
Blame me, apologies. I just said it did not belong, then got caught up in his attacks. I am sorry.
Sam xx
WallsofJericho - I remember reading bits of "The Blind Watchmaker" in the public library when I was a JW. I quickly realised that this very point demolished every argument I had ever used against evolution. I was shocked and quickly put the book back on the shelf.
I think most people seriously underestimate the power of cumulative selection.-cofty
I would agree with that. I did until I educated myself about the fox experiment in Ch3 of "The Gratest show on Earth". But only the humans conducting the experiment could direct where it went.
As far as natural selection goes, monkey's will never evovle to type Shakespere. Although the common ancestor could evolve a being far more advanced than we are today, we just cannot control or predict how we will evolve
Sam xx
monkey's will never evovle to type Shakespere
Sam. Sorry its no longer fun when you pretend to not understand anything.
pretend to not understand anything.-cofty
Ok, but I am bored. I will go and watch some telly and read my book. Have fun Sam xx
Cofty said-
I was reading something by Sean B. Carroll recently about the maths of evolution. A mutation only has to provide a very tiny advantage to its host, for that allele to become ubiquitous in the gene pool in a surprisingly short time.
Yeah, that's one of the most common misunderstandings in evolution, and if you actually read what I posted, you see how explained how many mutations can be disadvantageous (burdensome), just as long as they're not disadvantageous enough for the organism to be eliminated from the gene pool.
That misconception is prevalent and often-repeated on JWN, as if evolution is ALWAYS an "onwards and upwards" process of step-wise improvements (where you used the ratchet analogy). It simply isn't, and I think of many examples from the field of evolutionary biology to demonstrate why it's not true. However, but I don't want to risk being accused and chided by Cofty of taking the topic of natural selection "off-topic" by presenting textbook examples of how it actually operates.
In fact, the true story of how evolution operates is much more interesting than such fantasies, since it explains many of the problems that the limited "onwards and upwards" models cannot address, as a result of thinking that only the advantageous (and only slightly-better) mutations survive: if so, where's the intelligence that makes sure that only the "slightly-better genes" survive? Lay it on me, as I'm curious how you can explain that one.
Adam
where you used the ratchet analogy- King Solomon/ADAM
"Ratchet" as in the sense of accumulating mutations. In other words evolution doesn't have to do it all in one go. It is about the difference between single-step and cumulative selection. The "ratchet" of cumulative natural selection safeguards beneficial mutations in the gene pool - assuming the body that first hosts the mutation doesn't get eaten before it breeds.
You have an uncanny knack of misrepresenting what others have written.
"A mutation only has to provide a very tiny advantage to its host, for that allele to become ubiquitous in the gene pool in a surprisingly short time", is not a misunderstanding, it is a fact about the power of natural selection.
Of course any mutation have a mosaic of effects on its host. The word "advantage" is not simple. Just because somebody tries to be succint in their post doesn't mean they don't understand a lot more than they have written. By all means offer more information to take the subject forward.
When I complained about you being off-topic that was because you were waffling about ancient Hebrew culture.
IMO Dawkin's is obscuring the fact that probabilities are relevant.
I think a common error that many theogenists make is misapplying the odds. Take abiogenesis as an example. The odds against that singular critical event happening that changed a complex of molecules from non-living to living, must have been very high. Theogenists would say such a 1 in umpteen chance is so small as to be virtually impossible - that the answer must be intelligent design. But the critical issue they seem to conveniently forget is that while the odds against it happening are very high, the number of tries for it happening are also very high so as to make the eventual occurrence likely - almost inevitable.
To illustrate what I mean lets think of the lottery. What are the odds that a specific, singular individual playing the game on a specific, singular occassion, will win? Very slim. Now imagine someone using that fact to claim that it's impossible for anyone to win the lottery. That's what the theogenists are doing. However, lets look at the lottery odds in a different light: What are the odds that someone - anyone - will win the lottery at some time - anytime - given that many people are playing the game and the game continues to be played week after week for many years? Very high.
Well we can think of our vast universe with billions of planets each of which contains countless billions of micro-environments each having countless variations of chemistry and events and all of it happening for billions of years as one astronomically large non-stop lottery game with countless billions of players constantly playing over and over again for many years. The winning number is the right combination of chemistry and circumstances for that singular fortuitous abiogenetic event. What are the odds that a specific micro-environment on a specific planet at a specific time, will win? Extremely low. But what are the odds that some - any - micro-environment on some - any - planet will at some - any - time win? Very high. That event happened on earth and that's why we're here as humans to contemplate how life came about. If it hadn't happened here but happened elsewhere then we wouldn't be around to think about it while the intelligent life there would be contemplating their existence with awe.
I don't think anyone here in this discussion thinks only the best survives. There are lots of examples of slightly disadvantageous things evolving along with the good.
Excellent Island Man. I had read that point as well somewhere. Given unlimited time the chances approach almost a certainty that it will happen.
