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.
Not so sure, unless you are using a special sense of the word "means". I see no need for a director or purpose in the basic definition:If something evolved as a means, then it has a purpose and must have been directed.
What would it mean for something with a purpose to originate via an undirected process?
So it's up to random chance to get to the new protein. But the fact that there are 10^130 (ten to the 130 power) permutations of even a short protein with 100 amino acids, would seem to rule chance out too. After all, the universe is less than 10^18 seconds old.
The overwhelming majority of chains of amino acids don't even fold correctly and therefore do nothing useful at all. No benefit. Natural selection has no benefit to select.
Not so sure, unless you are using a special sense of the word "means".
...
means ... an action or system by which a result is brought about; a method.
The number of permutations by themselves doesn't matter. What matters is the relative ratio of functional to non-functional proteins. In that respect, there are no issues with respect to the evolution thereof.
There are two problems here.
First, you've made an unstated assumption here. The assumption is that along the path to the protein that's needed for the next step in evolution, each "stepping stone" functional protein is beneficial at that time. But for example, if the eye hadn't yet evolved, what benefit would rhodopsin provide? It would be just as worthless as a chain that doesn't fold correctly.
Second, the distance between stepping stones is far too large for random chance to ever step across. It's been estimated that only about one in every 10^77 chains of amino acids will even fold correctly, let alone provide a functional benefit.
The example you cited produced four small proteins, but I wonder if they provided any benefit. Also I wonder if the selection process of "enriching for those that bind to ATP" is sufficiently undirected to mimic real natural processes. Finally, I wonder how this process would scale. If it works in the lab with only 80 amino acids, there's no guarantee the universe is old enough for it to work with 100. Or 400.
Our problem here is we lack good words for complex advantageous outcomes that are sort of director-neutral.I was referring to FrumiousBandersnatch's post in which he proposed that consciousness evolved as a means of facilitating something. You seem to merely substitute method for means. That doesn't change the issue.
If consciousness, or any trait, originated to provide a means or a method, then it fulfills a purpose. Where there's a purpose, there's direction.
That's right. My views don't matter. I know.If you cant your views dont matter.
That's right. My views don't matter. I know.
But I'm fascinated by evolution because I'm still shocked to see that so many intelligent, knowledgeable people have been duped into having faith in the indefensible. You don't have to have a PhD to see that science has been twisted to support it.
First, you've made an unstated assumption here. The assumption is that along the path to the protein that's needed for the next step in evolution, each "stepping stone" functional protein is beneficial at that time.
Second, the distance between stepping stones is far too large for random chance to ever step across. It's been estimated that only about one in every 10^77 chains of amino acids will even fold correctly, let alone provide a functional benefit.
The example you cited produced four small proteins, but I wonder if they provided any benefit. Also I wonder if the selection process of "enriching for those that bind to ATP" is sufficiently undirected to mimic real natural processes. Finally, I wonder how this process would scale. If it works in the lab with only 80 amino acids, there's no guarantee the universe is old enough for it to work with 100. Or 400.
You're right to pick me up on that; I was using the 'intentional stance', and it's sloppy language in this context. I apologise; the correct way to express it is that consciousness evolved because it facilitated dynamic, flexible behaviour.If something evolved as a means, then it has a purpose and must have been directed.
Purpose, like meaning, is something we attribute to, or project onto, behaviours and events. At a human behaviour level of description, they are useful concepts - purpose is a way of describing and expressing why we plan ahead, make choices, and defer gratification in favour of long-term goals; it captures something of how it feels to want to do these things.What would it mean for something with a purpose to originate via an undirected process?
But I'm fascinated by evolution because I'm still shocked to see that so many intelligent, knowledgeable people have been duped into having faith in the indefensible.
You don't have to have a PhD to see that science has been twisted to support it.
Yes, but talking of “means to an end” in evolution is a retrospective attribution that suggests that the process has a goal, which is misleading to people unfamiliar with how it works.Random mutation and natural selection fully explain all sorts of features that are “means to an end” with no need to tack on some sort of directive agent.
So interesting. I've long considered that we humans are "meaning junkies". And if we cant find it, we'll invent it....It seems likely that the teleological view of nature is a projection, partly of how we experience making decisions, and partly from our ancient tendency to attribute agency to unexplained events or the activities of complex things (hyperactive agency detection). Interestingly, we often use it knowingly about inanimate objects - 'this microwave hates me', 'the car refused to start', etc.
Yeah, but when used with 'end' (as in 'means to an end') it carries connotations of goal-directed activity, which is potentially misleading. I was careless to use it in such a sensitive context as evolution.Not so sure, unless you are using a special sense of the word "means". I see no need for a director or purpose in the basic definition...
Yes, exactly; and we like making narratives to give events meaning. If things work out, we did well; if they don't work out, we were unlucky...So interesting. I've long considered that we humans are "meaning junkies". And if we cant find it, we'll invent it.
Many proteins have more than one application, and, with slight variations, multiple applications. The opsin family has a wide range of functions outside of mammalian eyes. They're most common in bacteria, where they supply a variety of light-activated functions, switching on/off membrane ion pumps, activating/deactivating enzymatic activity, etc.But for example, if the eye hadn't yet evolved, what benefit would rhodopsin provide? It would be just as worthless as a chain that doesn't fold correctly.
Really? What controls it? Don't tell me natural selection. And whose definition of evolution are you using? At last count there were 7. Evolutionists can't agree on a definition. Mine isEvolution is NOT totally random.
If that's one of your seven definitions it doesn't give me much confidence in the accuracy of the other six.Really? What controls it? Don't tell me natural selection. And whose definition of evolution are you using? At last count there were 7. Evolutionists can't agree on a definition. Mine is
"The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that life resulted; and that all living things have descended from that common ancestral form of life.”
Emphasis here is unguided.
I got that from "Science against Evolution", site set up by a computer scientist who worked for the military, including the AIM-9 missile. He's a genuine genius. And very funny.
Science Against Evolution Official Home Page
And whose definition of evolution are you using? At last count there were 7. Evolutionists can't agree on a definition.
I got that from "Science against Evolution", site set up by a computer scientist who worked for the military, including the AIM-9 missile. He's a genuine genius. And very funny.
Science Against Evolution Official Home Page
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?