Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No. And there may never be.
It sounds as if your "maybe never" is based on the complexity of the task. As such, I understand saying maybe, because no one knows what will be learned in the future.
What do you think of the emergence view?
Your question seem inappropriate.Question #4: For any given path through a phylogenetic tree, how many generations have passed from a progenitor species to the current species? For example, from Juramaia to Sylvilagus? (feel free to pick another example - maybe the best documented one you are aware of)
Question #5: For that series of generations how many have an extant specimen (living, preserved, remains, fossil, etc.)?
Question #6: Of the extant specimens, how many come as a DNA-morphology set?
That's not a fast and loose usage. You should realize that there are two quite distinct uses of 'theory' in physics. One kind of theory is 'a theory'. It's a specific model for some phenomena. The kind of theory is just 'theory'. This one is a mathematical framework that can be used for constructing theories. The latter usage comes straight from mathematics, e.g. set theory, number theory. String theory is theory, as is quantum field theory. Quantum chromodynamics and quantum electrodynamics are each a theory, both couched in terms of quantum field theory.Physics, institutionally, has really screwed this one up with "string theory". There's probably other fast and loose usage examples as well.
This is a poorly asked question that tells us that you do not understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory has to be supported by massive amounts of evidence. So as asked your question makes no sense at all.I have 9 questions about evolution. I understand they have the potential for heated conversation, but I’m hoping to fill some gaps in my knowledge. I will do my best to remain civil. As we proceed, some questions may become moot, or the conversation may prompt new questions. However, at the moment I have 9.
Just to be clear, I’m using the following as a definition of evolution: A change in allele frequency of a population from one generation to the next.
Given that is the definition, it is obvious evolution happens, so the questions are not aimed at whether or not it happens, but at how biologists characterize, analyze, and predict the objects and phenomena that make up evolution.
Question #1: If there is only one scientific theory explaining a phenomenon, is that theory a sufficient explanation for an occurrence of the phenomenon even without evidence?
This is a philosophical question. I am aware of the evidential claims for evolution, so I don’t need them repeated. I’m just looking for an answer to the philosophical question.
[edit]: Questions 2,3 are posted here.
[edit]: Questions 4,5,6 are posted here.
No, in general. There are some exceptions which we could tell would not produce a viable organism (trivially, the sequence 'AAATTT' will not produce a viable organism), but we cannot tell whether a sequence will produce something viable. Not remotely. We can't even predict with any kind of reliability what effect a single mutation will have on the tiny genome of a virus.Question #2: Given a DNA sequence, is there currently a means (based on the DNA alone) for determining if that sequence will produce a viable organism and what the morphology of that organism will be?
No, other than by looking at the DNA of closely related organisms (which typically will have similar morphology), which I don't think is what you're interested in.Question #3: Given the morphology of an organism, is there currently a means (based on morphology alone) for determining its DNA?
Take human-chimp ancestor to humans: roughly 250,000 generations.Question #4: For any given path through a phylogenetic tree, how many generations have passed from a progenitor species to the current species? For example, from Juramaia to Sylvilagus? (feel free to pick another example - maybe the best documented one you are aware of)
I dunno. Maybe a few hundred.Question #5: For that series of generations how many have an extant specimen (living, preserved, remains, fossil, etc.)?
If you're only counting 1 specimen per generation, then maybe a few dozen.Question #6: Of the extant specimens, how many come as a DNA-morphology set?
There are aspects that can be directly linked. Such as finding the proteins coded by a specific section of genes and seeing how they work. But there are so many different proteins involved and we have barely scratched the surface of this new science that it appears the answer to #2 and #3 are going to be "no" for a while.That's what I suspected - that it's based on comparisons of known DNA-morphology sets rather than an ability to model a direct link. However, I'd think some are trying to establish that direct link? Maybe? I don't know of anyone trying to establish direct links from material science to mechanics for my field, and in my opinion it seems a near impossible thing to do, but maybe some in biology are giving it a go.
On the other side, I know there is Stuart Kaufmann's camp that is saying biology is emergent, and therefore the link is impossible.
I would disagree with your value of "generation". For humans it is not unreasonable, but we have a rather long time to maturation. But for small mammals a generation can be very short. Mice, for example are sexually mature in as short as 4 weeks and at the most at 7 weeks. The live one to two and a half years on average in the wild. For them a generation would could easily be considered to be about 6 months. I would bump your number of generations by a factor of 4 at least. But then I am not a biologist.Your question seem inappropriate.
Juramaia, the earliest ancestor of most of today's mammals, lived 160 million years ago. A generation averages about 25 years so 160 by 25 is 6.4 million generations.
You won't find any intact fossil sets which include DNA older than a few hundred thousand years.
My suggestion is that you forgo such questions.
What do you mean by the "emergence view"?
Take human-chimp ancestor to humans: roughly 250,000 generations.
I dunno. Maybe a few hundred.
If you're only counting 1 specimen per generation, then maybe a few dozen.
Though the first question was philosophical, the remaining 8 are specific to evolution. Sorry if that disappoints anyone.
Question #2: Given a DNA sequence, is there currently a means (based on the DNA alone) for determining if that sequence will produce a viable organism and what the morphology of that organism will be?
Question #3: Given the morphology of an organism, is there currently a means (based on morphology alone) for determining its DNA?
You won't find any intact fossil sets which include DNA older than a few hundred thousand years.
DNA is going to degrade as time goes on. But the rate can vary greatly depending upon several factors. Number one is probably where did the animal die? If it died in the tropics with ideal temperatures for bacteria and other life it may be years in most cases. In the Arctic or Antarctic it can be much much longer. Size is another factor. A mouse will break down rather rapidly. or get consumed and break own almost entirely. An elephant's DNA could last for quite some time. It's tusks especially would protect the DNA for quite some time.
The best known proponent is Stuart Kauffman: The new physics needed to probe the origins of life
The simple definition is a system which exhibits behaviors that are only attributable to the system and not to the properties of the parts. It means reductionist methods don't work; the system behavior can't be understood by understanding the parts, but must be understood as a system.
This emergence stuff has nothing to do with my doubt that life forms could be extracted and computed from just a DNA sequence. Frankly, the idea that the morphology of a multicellular creature could be determined from just the DNA sequence is a Sci Fi fantasy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?