If evolution is true...

Tinker Grey · Nov 17, 2019

sesquiterpene said:
The paper tries to explain something that's long been known: there seem to be mutation "hotspots" in areas of the genome. It proposes a model to account for this. It is interesting, but hardly likely to "shake things up majorly" as the author claims in an act of blatant self-promotion. It also doesn't address the issue of randomness of the mutations in regards to fitness.

Of course, I don't have any answers. But, I don't find the idea of hotspots surprising. Snowflakes (at least as an analogy) form randomly. They accrue molecules of water in a haphazard way. Nevertheless, it can only form certain combinations of shapes (allowing for many many forms, of course). Why? Because of the chemical properties of water.

So, perhaps DNA can accrue (to crudely extend the metaphor) changes only in certain ways. Seems a reasonable area of research.

You can't roll a 7 on a standard 6-sided die.

(That is to say, I agree with your post.)

klutedavid · Nov 17, 2019

sesquiterpene said:
The paper tries to explain something that's long been known: there seem to be mutation "hotspots" in areas of the genome. It proposes a model to account for this. It is interesting, but hardly likely to "shake things up majorly" as the author claims in an act of blatant self-promotion. It also doesn't address the issue of randomness of the mutations in regards to fitness.

May I ask how you could claim; that any event could ever be a random event without causation?

Given that Science actually investigates cause and effect, all events in space time are interrelated.

How can you claim that there exists in space time, such random events?

What is your evidence to support this claim?

klutedavid · Nov 17, 2019

Tinker Grey said:
Of course, I don't have any answers. But, I don't find the idea of hotspots surprising. Snowflakes (at least as an analogy) form randomly. They accrue molecules of water in a haphazard way. Nevertheless, it can only form certain combinations of shapes (allowing for many many forms, of course). Why? Because of the chemical properties of water.

So, perhaps DNA can accrue (to crudely extend the metaphor) changes only in certain ways. Seems a reasonable area of research.

You can't roll a 7 on a standard 6-sided die.

(That is to say, I agree with your post.)

There are only a strictly defined set of permutations possible for any process, any events in space time. The faces on a die are a set of possible events.

All events in space time are restricted, are bounded, can be observed and understood, measured, and even predicted.

If there exists a random set of events in space time, then science would be an invalid discipline. Since one could never know whether any event is a random event or not, an event that occurs without some prior influence on it's behavior.

For example, is a volcanic eruption a random event with no underlying causation?

Are earthquakes random events that occur without any rhyme or reason?

sesquiterpene · Nov 17, 2019

klutedavid said:
If there exists a random set of events in space time, then science would be an invalid discipline. Since one could never know whether any event is a random event or not, an event that occurs without some prior influence on it's behavior.

For example, is a volcanic eruption a random event with no underlying causation?

This is beyond silly - you are equating random with uncaused, and they are not the same. Randomness refers to the distribution of outcomes, not to the causes. In 1905 Einstein published a paper ascribing the cause of Brownian motion of pollen in water to the collision of water molecules. He described a cause, yet the outcome of Brownian motion is still random.

"Science" doesn't even blink when confronted with randomness, instead there is a large body of work dealing with random noise in all it's manifestations: randomness is measured, not dealt with by total stupefaction! [edit: I probably shouldn't equate random with noise, either]

"Science" doesn't even blink when confronted with the possibility of truly uncaused events. Various phenomena such as radioactive decay and quantum fluctuations may well be uncaused; why would that bother us?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Nov 17, 2019

sesquiterpene said:
The paper tries to explain something that's long been known: there seem to be mutation "hotspots" in areas of the genome. It proposes a model to account for this. It is interesting, but hardly likely to "shake things up majorly" as the author claims in an act of blatant self-promotion. It also doesn't address the issue of randomness of the mutations in regards to fitness.

IIRC, there's already evidence of stress-related regulation of DNA repair mechanisms.

Speedwell · Nov 17, 2019

klutedavid said:
May I ask how you could claim; that any event could ever be a random event without causation?

Given that Science actually investigates cause and effect, all events in space time are interrelated.

How can you claim that there exists in space time, such random events?

What is your evidence to support this claim?

What makes you think that a random event is "without causation?"

klutedavid · Nov 17, 2019

Speedwell said:
What makes you think that a random event is "without causation?"

All events in space time are causal events. If any event appears to be a random event, then your just not looking deep enough at that event.

Randomness is an abstract concept like infinity that exists only in concept and has no physical basis. True randomness is, in fact, achieved only with maximum entropy, which perhaps only exists when time is at infinity (the same as the venerated Central Limit Theory). Time is a finite concept and, in short, time can never be infinite, hence a random event cannot occur.

klutedavid · Nov 17, 2019

sesquiterpene said:
This is beyond silly - you are equating random with uncaused, and they are not the same. Randomness refers to the distribution of outcomes, not to the causes. In 1905 Einstein published a paper ascribing the cause of Brownian motion of pollen in water to the collision of water molecules. He described a cause, yet the outcome of Brownian motion is still random.

"Science" doesn't even blink when confronted with randomness, instead there is a large body of work dealing with random noise in all it's manifestations: randomness is measured, not dealt with by total stupefaction! [edit: I probably shouldn't equate random with noise, either]

"Science" doesn't even blink when confronted with the possibility of truly uncaused events. Various phenomena such as radioactive decay and quantum fluctuations may well be uncaused; why would that bother us?

If you accepted the concept that infinity could well exist, then you would probably also accept, that a truly random event could occur.

There is a sharp distinction between an imaginary concept and the observable reality of space time that we exist within.

Mathematics and science frequently use imaginary concepts such as infinite sets, functions that tend towards infinity, infinite limits in integrals, e.t.c. Even the universe could be an infinite entity according to science.

No one can prove a random event ever occurred, why would anyone accept that a random event could even exist?

inquiring mind · Nov 17, 2019

pitabread said:
Has anyone else noticed that when someone starts a question/argument with "if evolution is true..." that what follows invariably has nothing to do with how evolution actually works?
Why is that?

Just because adaptation and changes occur, doesn’t mean that speculative evolution happened over millions of years, and it certainly doesn’t mean creation didn’t happen. For example, there is very little evidence to ‘fill in gaps’ of the supposed evolution of humanity from ‘whatever.’ My understanding is it's based on a large collection of confounding fossils, something like six complete skeletons, and about 200 skulls of other than modern humans. Yes, other than textbook speculations, that’s the support for human evolution. So, why should ‘how does it work’ carry authority… it’s more like ‘did it happen?’ I don’t think it did.

Shemjaza · Nov 17, 2019

inquiring mind said:
Just because adaptation and changes occur, doesn’t mean that speculative evolution happened over millions of years, and it certainly doesn’t mean creation didn’t happen. For example, there is very little evidence to ‘fill in gaps’ of the supposed evolution of humanity from ‘whatever.’ My understanding is it's based on a large collection of confounding fossils, something like six complete skeletons, and about 200 skulls of other than modern humans. Yes, other than textbook speculations, that’s the support for human evolution. So, why should ‘how does it work’ carry authority… it’s more like ‘did it happen?’ I don’t think it did.

Your understanding is false, I'm afraid.

Speedwell · Nov 18, 2019

klutedavid said:
All events in space time are causal events. If any event appears to be a random event, then your just not looking deep enough at that event.

Randomness is an abstract concept like infinity that exists only in concept and has no physical basis. True randomness is, in fact, achieved only with maximum entropy, which perhaps only exists when time is at infinity (the same as the venerated Central Limit Theory). Time is a finite concept and, in short, time can never be infinite, hence a random event cannot occur.

In science, random merely means unpredictable.

"Predicable by no known algorithm" The Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineering, Sokolnikov and Redheffer.

There is nothing in the scientific use of the term "random" which makes any statement about cause or purpose, one way or the other.

pitabread · Nov 18, 2019

inquiring mind said:
For example, there is very little evidence to ‘fill in gaps’ of the supposed evolution of humanity from ‘whatever.’ My understanding is it's based on a large collection of confounding fossils, something like six complete skeletons, and about 200 skulls of other than modern humans. Yes, other than textbook speculations, that’s the support for human evolution.

Your understanding appears highly incomplete. For example you are completely leaving out other lines of evidence, especially from genetics.

SLP · Nov 18, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
Or we have just pondered it for ourselves and came to that conclusion.

Pity that such pondering was not linked to using internet search functions.

SLP · Nov 18, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
Hard to understand that which cannot be understood.

Lots of people understand it.

You are apparently one that of the multitudes that choose not to.

SLP · Nov 18, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
If you accept some things on faith you can use your brain for other things.

"After thinking about all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can even think at all." -Neil Simon.

Lots of artists have a hard time in structured environments. I guess that means that evolution is wrong because some people didn't like high school.

What about the people that got molested by their religious authorities? Does that mean creationism is false?

SLP · Nov 18, 2019

inquiring mind said:
Just because adaptation and changes occur, doesn’t mean that speculative evolution happened over millions of years, and it certainly doesn’t mean creation didn’t happen.

The utter lack of supporting evidence strongly suggests that creation didn't happen.

For example, there is very little evidence to ‘fill in gaps’ of the supposed evolution of humanity from ‘whatever.’

Remind us all - what is the evidence that Man was created as described in Genesis?

My understanding is it's based on a large collection of confounding fossils, something like six complete skeletons, and about 200 skulls of other than modern humans. Yes, other than textbook speculations, that’s the support for human evolution. So, why should ‘how does it work’ carry authority… it’s more like ‘did it happen?’ I don’t think it did.

All these years of "debate" on this topic, and that is all you can remember about it?

Use your Google scholar:

Catarrhine primate divergence dates estimated from complete mitochondrial genomes: concordance with fossil and nuclear DNA evidence
Journal of Human Evolution
Volume 48, Issue 3, March 2005, Pages 237-257

Molecular data matches fossil data. What are the odds?

SLP · Nov 18, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
Creationism carries 'baggage' that evolutionists would rather not deal with.

Yes - primarily believing something for which there is no evidence for.

SLP · Nov 18, 2019

sesquiterpene said:
The paper tries to explain something that's long been known: there seem to be mutation "hotspots" in areas of the genome.

For crying out loud - I was told about these 30 years ago!

It proposes a model to account for this. It is interesting, but hardly likely to "shake things up majorly" as the author claims in an act of blatant self-promotion.

Man, I hate that.

OldWiseGuy · Nov 18, 2019

SLP said:
Lots of people understand it.

You are apparently one that of the multitudes that choose not to.

Of those who believe it very few understand it. Do a poll, see for yourself.

I don't believe it because it conflicts with something I do believe. Such conflicts are common, even here.

SLP · Nov 18, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
Of those who believe it very few understand it. Do a poll, see for yourself.

Your claim, you do the poll.

I don't believe it because it conflicts with something I do believe. Such conflicts are common, even here.

So you reject facts because of your mere beliefs.

Not very logical.

If evolution is true...

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency