How does natural selection determine which mutations remain and which do not?

pshun2404 · Oct 9, 2017

tas8831 said:
How, exactly, are " sound waves, electromagnetic radiation, and electric currents" not within the "materialistic, mechanistic venue"?

Actually they are also physical but the standard venue is the idea that it was purely chemical and operated through receptors on the surface...now we know cell communication and stimuli/response also includes these other non-chemical factors and that information also flows through the membrane aside from these receptors. That was the only point I was making...that these were formerly not part of the interpretation normally believed by most materialists (as I believe was first presented in what Sarah originally said)...I merely pointed out they also receive and respond to frequencies (which certainly are also physical)....

PsychoSarah · Oct 9, 2017

pshun2404 said:
Actually they do...each cell vibrates and sends out vibrations into the surrounding environment. We do not know as of yet whether or not they respond to these from others (which they may) but we do know that they respond to frequencies (which is what I had said)...

-_- oh come on, the vibrations of those cells are due to transport proteins being active in the membrane. It's not something they do to communicate, it is a consequence of their membrane activities they have to do to survive. They are not vibrating in order to communicate.

But, hey, you aren't alone in the idea, so I think you would find this worth keeping an eye on Are Molecular Vibration Patterns of Cell Structural Elements Used for Intracellular Signalling?
Currently they just have the hypothesis and have yet to conduct the experiment, though.

DogmaHunter · Oct 10, 2017

pshun2404 said:
Yes wings specialized for flight are a subset of wings but we should not assume they evolved later (the few fossil remains are a minute representative sample mostly from those that could not fly and avoid landslides, floods, and earthquake subduction, etc.).

Uhu, uhu... instead, we should assume that the sub-set existed before the mother-set. Right, right.

And yes most animals do die and remain on the surface till they rot, and some others are covered over enhancing the likelihood of fossilization. No warped logic whatsoever.

The warped logic was your implication that birds don't fossilize because "they live in the air".

pshun2404 · Oct 10, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
Uhu, uhu... instead, we should assume that the sub-set existed before the mother-set. Right, right.

The warped logic was your implication that birds don't fossilize because "they live in the air".

You are again assuming the other was the "mother set" (a fact you cannot know)...in fact they may have simply been two extant varieties. It is a matter of interpretation.

Take Darwin's pasarines for another avian example...there is no scientific facts that say the short beaks became the long beaks or vice versa (though that is certainly one possibility and the one we are indoctrinated with). It could be just that both varieties already existed and on those islands where the food source favored one variety the others flew to the other source or died out (still natural selection at work), and the same for the other.

I say this simply because the facts can support either possibility and I am aware and agree that speciation processes can and do cause variety (there are now about 5000 varieties of passerine world wide)

AND that logic of birds that could fly would less likely fossilize is not warped at all if one understands the process of the production of sedimentary rock and how creatures become fossilized. If I can escape the flooding or land slide by flying away to another place I am NOT covered over and thus not material for fossilization (it is illogical to assume otherwise).

tas8831 · Oct 10, 2017

pshun2404 said:
Actually they are also physical but the standard venue is the idea that it was purely chemical and operated through receptors on the surface...now we know cell communication and stimuli/response also includes these other non-chemical factors and that information also flows through the membrane aside from these receptors. That was the only point I was making...that these were formerly not part of the interpretation normally believed by most materialists (as I believe was first presented in what Sarah originally said)...I merely pointed out they also receive and respond to frequencies (which certainly are also physical)....

So, supernaturalists always assumed otherwise?

tas8831 · Oct 10, 2017

xianghua said:
but there is no function at all if you will remove some parts of the olfactory system. so it's not the same like wings. therefore your example is irrelevant.

Which parts and how do you know?

tas8831 · Oct 10, 2017

xianghua said:
prove it. provide evidence that this receptor has a functional meaning without the other parts. just by itself. can you do that?

When will you prove something?

tas8831 · Oct 10, 2017

pshun2404 said:
The problem here is that cells also sense things in their environment via frequencies given off...(a cellular sensory ability) and we must admit that we just do not know whether there is more (yet to be discerned) involved.

I find it interesting that for you, this sort of thing is still a open book, but you are so certain that evolution and abiogenesis are wrong wrong wrong, even to the point that you are OK with misrepresenting information to shore up your certainty. i don't get it.

xianghua · Oct 10, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
The chance of evolving anything particular random trait is always low.
Which doesn't matter, because there is no purpose or goal for evolution.

A sense of smell wasn't "planned" or "intended". The probability of such a trait is only meaningfull when it IS planned or intended.

Having said that.... probability is also only meaningfull when placed in context of amount of trials.

If you have 1 chance in a trillion, then it's a ridiculously low chance.
But if you get 100 trillion trials, not only will it be inevitable... it will, on average, happen 100 times.

Low probility events become inevitable, given enough trials.

and what if the chance is about one in 10^30 trials?

tas8831 · Oct 10, 2017

xianghua said:
and what if the chance is about one in 10^30 trials?

And what if post hoc statistical analyses are shown to be irrelevant to the outcome of a non-goal oriented stochastic process?

pshun2404 · Oct 10, 2017

S

tas8831 said:
So, supernaturalists always assumed otherwise?

Super-naturalists probably never even give these matters much thought...

Tayla · Oct 10, 2017

pshun2404 said:
What processes, mechanisms, enzymes, etc., are involved in their formation and in allowing those that stay?

The standard scientific answer is that random changes occur via all kinds of complex biochemical process and are passed on to the offspring. The natural world is ultra-competitive, and those creatures that can't compete die before passing on the changes. Thus, randomness results in creatures seemingly designed to survive.

Tayla · Oct 10, 2017

pshun2404 said:
How did they come about and what processes, mechanisms, enzymes, etc., are involved in allowing those that stay?

There is a good course on YouTube answering all your questions. Search for "YaleCourses Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior". Find the playlist in the "YaleCourses" channel if you can; there are 36 classes in this course.

USincognito · Oct 11, 2017

xianghua said:
impossible. since a minimal sense of smell need at least olfactory receptor, a wiring to a speciel part in the brain, and a process mechanism in the brain that can interpret the signal from the olfactory receptor. so a part of this system will not work.

Crown of Thorns starfish don't have a brain, but it does appear to have a very
primitive olfactory system.
Identification of putative olfactory G-protein coupled receptors in Crown-of-Thorns starfish, Acanthaster planci

Conclusions

We have identified putative COTS olfactory receptors that localise to sensory organs. These results provide a basis for future studies that may enable the development of a biological control not only for COTS, but also other native pest or invasive starfish.

Italics mine.

USincognito · Oct 11, 2017

xianghua said:
prove it. provide evidence that this receptor has a functional meaning without the other parts. just by itself. can you do that?

Does your Google randomly break when you might stumble upon things that will falsify your opinions? If found the starfish olfactory receptor paper in about 5 seconds.

USincognito · Oct 11, 2017

Golly gee, lookie here. An entire Wikipedia entry dedicated to the evolution of olfactory systems.
Evolution of olfaction - Wikipedia
And here's a paper from 20 years ago discussing vertabrate olfactory systems specifically.
Evolution of vertebrate olfactory systems. - PubMed - NCBI

xianghua · Oct 11, 2017

USincognito said:
Crown of Thorns starfish don't have a brain, but it does appear to have a very
primitive olfactory system.

and still this system need at least 3 parts: a OR, a connection to his nervous system and a mechanism that is able to process the signal from the OR. so again; even in it's basic form this system cant evolve stepwise.

Jimmy D · Oct 11, 2017

xianghua said:
so again; even in it's basic form this system cant evolve stepwise.

It can't evolve or you don't know how it evolved?

pshun2404 · Oct 11, 2017

jesus316 said:
The standard scientific answer is that random changes occur via all kinds of complex biochemical process and are passed on to the offspring. The natural world is ultra-competitive, and those creatures that can't compete die before passing on the changes. Thus, randomness results in creatures seemingly designed to survive.

That "randomness results in creatures seemingly designed to survive" is an erroneous conclusion based on the presupposition of randomness as the cause. The evidence based conclusion should be that those creatures that survive can pass on some of the mutations they randomly accumulated (thus the logical conclusion being the exact opposite).

tas8831 · Oct 11, 2017

pshun2404 said:
S

Super-naturalists probably never even give these matters much thought...

Indeed - they just show up on internet forums declaring everyone else is wrong.

How does natural selection determine which mutations remain and which do not?

Newbie

Chaotic Neutral

Code Monkey

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency