Creation & Evolution

[Arikay]

Although not the best site, it is a copy of the times article of an observed Speciation.
http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm

"I have been programming for a long long long time and I can quite honestly say that I have never ever seen a program give birth to 2 new speices of programs."

Notice I said in programs. If you are a programer, you should check out the program Avida, its an evolution simulation.

Also, there were people who were trying to use evolution to "evolve" an ocilator circuit, and instead got a radio.

"Nor have I ever kicked a mountain dew bottle and ended up with a coke and 7up bottle. That is pretty much what the evolution we are speaking of does."

Thats Not evolution. Sorry to tell you that where ever you are getting your information about evolution, they are wrong.

This is called a strawman argument. Its a strawman because you are creating a false argument (as this is Not evolution) then you proceed to burn it (show its wrong or stupid).

Strawmen are ineffective at argueing against evolution as they often show how much the one doing the burning doesnt know.

SearchBrain();

nope! Its not there!

I don't think I have ever heard on the news that someone has observed 2 different species being created from the same species.



I have been programming for a long long long time and I can quite honestly say that I have never ever seen a program give birth to 2 new speices of programs. Nor have I ever kicked a mountain dew bottle and ended up with a coke and 7up bottle. That is pretty much what the evolution we are speaking of does.

There is two different kinds of evolution:
1. That species adapt to an envrioment.
2. That one species branchs out into multiple species.

IE: there is evolution and there is the theory of evolution.

 

[wblastyn]

"There is two different kinds of evolution:
1. That species adapt to an envrioment.
2. That one species branchs out into multiple species.

IE: there is evolution and there is the theory of evolution."
Yes, 1 lead to 2 over a longer period of time. The adaptations cause the species to become so different than the original that they can no longer breed to produce fertile offspring (either because they don't "fit" or chromoseome numbers are different, etc).

Evolution is "descent with modification" and the theory of evolution explains how organisms "descend with modification".

 

[Snide]

that's a big problem then, because if you had, you would understand that this quantum randomness is a fundamental part of the laws of physics.

That's not always a bad thing, not always a good thing either I suppose. Sometimes it's good because it gets people outside the box. Micheal Faraday's work is a good example of that in history.

Seems to be working just fine with pesudorandom numbers. The transformation from a non-deterministic universe to a deterministic one shouldn't cause any compatibility problems what so ever with any theories. It should strengthen the foundation mathematically as it would explain why we require time in our equations and algorithms. Should also prove to be a useful tool for exploring in physics. IE: it could bring your attention to something you didn't even know was there.

I think this will be changed eventually. Wouldn't be the first time in history that the view of physics has changed.

That is interesting anyway, its also a fundamental part of cryptography. Which is the subject that got me interested in this topic. In a nutshell the better the random number generator, the better the cryptography output will be when its ran through a cipher. In computer science, we have accepted that we're only going to generate pesudorandom numbers because a computer is a deterministic machine. Which means if we are giong to find a true random number generator we are going to have to look at antoher outside source. The only thing that generates a true random number is a non deterministic system, in fact that is all it generates because there is nothing that determines the output.

 

[Jet Black]

The transformation from a non-deterministic universe to a deterministic one shouldn't cause any compatibility problems what so ever with any theories.

yes it would.

 

[Snide]

Although not the best site, it is a copy of the times article of an observed Speciation.
http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm

"I have been programming for a long long long time and I can quite honestly say that I have never ever seen a program give birth to 2 new speices of programs."

Notice I said in programs. If you are a programer, you should check out the program Avida, its an evolution simulation.

Also, there were people who were trying to use evolution to "evolve" an ocilator circuit, and instead got a radio.

"Nor have I ever kicked a mountain dew bottle and ended up with a coke and 7up bottle. That is pretty much what the evolution we are speaking of does."

Thats Not evolution. Sorry to tell you that where ever you are getting your information about evolution, they are wrong.

This is called a strawman argument. Its a strawman because you are creating a false argument (as this is Not evolution) then you proceed to burn it (show its wrong or stupid).

Strawmen are ineffective at argueing against evolution as they often show how much the one doing the burning doesnt know.

Your right that isn't evolution but computer programs aren't a good example of evolution either. I was being a little comical there.

If you want an example of evolution for a computer program then take a program written specifically for windows and watch it learn to run on UNIX. In short you'll have to step in eventually when you change something the program actually uses unless you code the program for both environments. It has to be setup for the environment. It won’t do it on its own.

A program that simulates evolution is doable. So would be a program to simulation the theory of evolution. But of course simulating a person who kicks a mountain dew bottle which causes it to turn into a 7up and coke bottle is also doable. In any of the above cases it’s what we think it may look like, not what it looks like. In other words you cannot replace observation with simulation...

I will not argue that evolution isn't fact in the sense that species will adapt to environments, there is evidence that shows it does. But I will say it's not fact that we come from a common ancestor as chimps. Even though I really hate the idea (Makes you feel a little lower) I can see how it’s possible that it could happen that way. But it’s still possible that it didn’t happen that way until we have evidence to show that it did.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I will not argue that evolution isn't fact in the sense that species will adapt to environments, there is evidence that shows it does. But I will say it's not fact that we come from a common ancestor as chimps. Even though I really hate the idea (Makes you feel a little lower) I can see how it’s possible that it could happen that way. But it’s still possible that it didn’t happen that way until we have evidence to show that it did.

You mean evidence like the fossil hominids?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Shared pseudo genes with identical errors?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#pseudogenes

and endogenous retroviral insertions?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

If it didn't happen why is there so much evidence that it did happen?

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Snide]

yes it would.

Yea but something that is deterministic in principle can still be uncertain in pratice. What theory requires true randomness?

 

[Jet Black]

I think you are talking about chaos theory there. there is a difference in say, chaos theory, and the single photon young's slits experiments, which return random results (random, but constrained by probability)

 

[Snide]

I think you are talking about chaos theory there. there is a difference in say, chaos theory, and the single photon young's slits experiments, which return random results (random, but constrained by probability)

No I'm not though it sorta sounds like it huh?

In the quantum universe (Least the way I understand it so far), in pratice you cannot predict the output but your are able to deterministically predict the probablility. In short this means we're not working with true random output but pesudorandom output. In a non-deterministic universe the probability would be unkown and impossible to determine.

So in principle we are working with deterministic output but in pratice its uncertain.

 

[TheBear]

So your method is to pick the highest probable item an accept it as fact even though other possibilities exist or even if its the only possibility you know of?

No.

I don't believe any scientific explaination as fact. I don't think any reputable scientist claims scientific explainations as fact. That's the beauty of science....no dogma. Everything is subject to be overturned in the light of new evidence. Scientists are not 'dug in', defending to the death, hypotheses that have been falsified by their peers. The Theory of Electronics is just that. It is not called the 'Facts of Electronics'. Yet, our confidence in the theory is extremely high, and we have made many advances based on the Theory of Electronics. If staunch dogma, digging in, and holding the line with a closed mind were the standard operating procedure of the scientific community, we would not be discussing these things on a computer in front of us. We wouldn't even have electricity in our homes, let alone devices that can transmit voice, data and text - worldwide, instantly. No. Closed minded dogma is not the way of the scientific community. It's quite the opposite.

Thats thinking with a very closed mind IMHO. That's the #1 problem I see with this debate, your accepting a maybe as fact. The underlying argument here is my belief is better then yours. No matter what side you pick, your picking belief.

See above for clarification.

When is the last time you observed evolution?

Every day.

 

[sfs]

In the quantum universe (Least the way I understand it so far), in pratice you cannot predict the output but your are able to deterministically predict the probablility. In short this means we're not working with true random output but pesudorandom output. In a non-deterministic universe the probability would be unkown and impossible to determine.

No, that distinction isn't right. Nondeterministic means the current state does not determine a unique future state. A system can be nondeterministic and still have known probabilities for different outcomes. Pseudorandom just means that something is deterministic but the outcome looks close enough to random that we can pretend it is for some purposes. Under usual interpretations of quantum mechanics, the universe is nondeterministic.

 

[sfs]

I don't believe any scientific explaination as fact. I don't think any reputable scientist claims scientific explainations as fact. That's the beauty of science....no dogma. Everything is subject to be overturned in the light of new evidence.

I see this kind of response a lot, and while I agree with the intent, I don't think this way of expressing it is quite right. Most reputable scientists, in fact, are perfectly happy to talk about scienific explanations as facts. Some explanations, that is, those that are well-supported enough that they can be treated as certain for practical purposes. I think they're quite right to do so, since that's all "fact" means in ordinary life too. It doesn't mean something that could never, under any possible circumstances, turn out to be wrong, because if it did there would be no facts, and the word would be kind of useless. What scientists require is that facts be subject to test, and that anything that doesn't stand up to testing be rejected.

 

[Occam 2003]

(Apologies in advance if this isn't the best thread for this question....)

When it comes to mating, what makes two incompatible species incompatible? More importantly, how is it that this difference, when it first emerged through evolution, did not prevent the first "different" member of the species from mating with other members of the species who still had the older version of this trait?

I haven't heard a creationist ask this question yet, but I'd like to know the correct answer if it ever comes up.

 

[sfs]

When it comes to mating, what makes two incompatible species incompatible? More importantly, how is it that this difference, when it first emerged through evolution, did not prevent the first "different" member of the species from mating with other members of the species who still had the older version of this trait?

The difference can be all sorts of things. It can be a subtle biochemical incompatibility (enzymes that don't work well together, say); it can be incompatible developmental paths that get screwed up when you try to combine them; it can be different mating cues (different pheremones or different calls); it can be differently timed mating (flowers that bloom at different parts of the season). Once one incompatibility develops, lots of others are likely to accumulate as well -- try to think of all the reasons that oaks can't mate with kangaroos, for example.

Incompatibility can get started because it doesn't develop in a single individual, nor in a single generation. (Usually, that is.) Picture two groups of the same species that are more or less isolated from each other. One or both of them gradually changes, perhaps to adapt to a different environment, perhaps randomly. At first the two groups can probably crossbreed, but they gradually become less and less compatible, and eventually are clearly different species. The isolation can occur for a variety of reasons, but the most obvious is geographical: there's a ravine betwen teh two groups, or a mountain, or a lake.

 

[Occam 2003]

The difference can be all sorts of things. It can be a subtle biochemical incompatibility (enzymes that don't work well together, say); it can be incompatible developmental paths that get screwed up when you try to combine them; it can be different mating cues (different pheremones or different calls); it can be differently timed mating (flowers that bloom at different parts of the season). Once one incompatibility develops, lots of others are likely to accumulate as well -- try to think of all the reasons that oaks can't mate with kangaroos, for example.

Incompatibility can get started because it doesn't develop in a single individual, nor in a single generation. (Usually, that is.) Picture two groups of the same species that are more or less isolated from each other. One or both of them gradually changes, perhaps to adapt to a different environment, perhaps randomly. At first the two groups can probably crossbreed, but they gradually become less and less compatible, and eventually are clearly different species. The isolation can occur for a variety of reasons, but the most obvious is geographical: there's a ravine betwen teh two groups, or a mountain, or a lake.

Thanks for the reply, SFS. I think was I had been forgetting is that this is a gradual process that a small group goes through *together." To re-phrase what you already said.... In the early stages of this little slice of evolution, Group A and Group B members can mate. As the changes in Group B begin occurring, all members can still mate with each other, both between and within the respective groups. But, as Group B continues to evolve together, there *eventually* comes a moment when none of the Group B members could successfully mate with Group A members (if they tried).

The main reason I became confused about this point was that I had started to assume that the reason two species cannot mate is because they have a different number of AT/GC pairs in their DNA (or something like that). If the problem preventing mating were something like this, there would be no gradual steps along the way. As soon as the mutation happened in an animal, that individual would not be able to breed and would never pass his/her DNA code on to another generation. From your answer, I see that this is not necessarily the case.

 

[Snide]

No, that distinction isn't right. Nondeterministic means the current state does not determine a unique future state. A system can be nondeterministic and still have known probabilities for different outcomes. Pseudorandom just means that something is deterministic but the outcome looks close enough to random that we can pretend it is for some purposes. Under usual interpretations of quantum mechanics, the universe is nondeterministic.

Key thing here: "Nondeterministic means the current state does not determine a unique future state."

Thats why you cannot generate a probablility in a non-deterministic universe. The previous results you have collected will not be useful to predict the next or even some kind of chances for the next.

Does quantum mechanics explain why you would need time in a non-deterministic universe? I mean if the universe is really non-deterministic then you could leave time out of your equations.

 

[sfs]

Key thing here: "Nondeterministic means the current state does not determine a unique future state."

Thats why you cannot generate a probablility in a non-deterministic universe. The previous results you have collected will not be useful to predict the next or even some kind of chances for the next.

What you wrote does not follow from what you just quoted. I specifically said that a unique future state is not determined. That does not imply that all future states are possible, or that some future states aren't more likely than others. As I said before, quantum mechanics under standard interpretations is nondeterministic and yet does specify probabilities for future states. That's just the way it is. Maybe QM is wrong, or the interpretation of it is wrong, but that's where physics stands at present.

Does quantum mechanics explain why you would need time in a non-deterministic universe? I mean if the universe is really non-deterministic then you could leave time out of your equations.

QM needs time in its description because the probabilities change with time.