;) Murphy's law disproves evolution

[pudmuddle]

Things get pretty serious on here sometimes, so in an effort to lighten up a bit:
I propose that evolution as it is taught is easily disproven by the well know law of murphy.
Murphy's law goes something like this: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong and at the worst possible moment.
So if we take a look into the primoral slime of our distant past, we see bertha the spotted mutating bullfrog who is poised to develop legs sometime in the next millinia. Under murphy's law, bertha would undoubtledly be squashed by a metorite or fryed by a stray fauna fire at the very moment she was laying the " chosen egg"
We all know murphy's law to be true. I prove it almost everyday. Not to go into detail, but I proved it about 10 times yesterday. I even have a friend whose last name is murphy and he confirmed that indeed, the law applys to him, in spade.
There you have it, evolution would have to defy murphy's law a few hundred billion times to even hope to get off the ground.

 

[geocajun]

that is the most reasonable argument I have heard yet.

 

[lucaspa]

Things get pretty serious on here sometimes, so in an effort to lighten up a bit:
I propose that evolution as it is taught is easily disproven by the well know law of murphy.
Murphy's law goes something like this: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong and at the worst possible moment.

As you said, the post was humorous. So we don't have to take the argument seriously, do we?

However, the fact that you actually posted this post refutes Murphy's Law, doesn't it? Nothing went wrong, did it? Nor with this response, either.

 

[ern]

You just pointed out a problem with his theory, so something did go wrong therefore his theory is correct.

 

[-=Burnt Toast=-]

ah, but evolution is made up of many "wrongs"

 

[lucaspa]

You just pointed out a problem with his theory, so something did go wrong therefore his theory is correct.

Ah. Wrong theory. Pudmuddle has two theories going:

1. Murphy's Law always works.
2. Murphy's Law forbids evolution.

What I showed was that theory #1 is incorrect. Therefore, theory #2 doesn't work because the underlying theory on which it is based is in error.

But nice try at confusing the issue and trying to save a lost position.

 

[lucaspa]

ah, but evolution is made up of many "wrongs"

This may be a separate topic. I'm not sure what you mean.

Natural selection does depend on many trials. Most of those will be wrong. But not all of them. Then selection picks the trials that are correct and preserves them so that you don't have to reinvent them again and again.

Pudmuddle's humorous contention was that all trials are wrong. The fact that he posted and that I replied showed that idea to be wrong.

If Pudmuddle were correct, none of us would ever be able to start our cars, watch TV, etc because something would always go wrong in that complicated process.

What's worse, life would stop. Forget evolution, just consider the complicated processes that go on in our cells all the time for life to continue. Creationists like to point to how complicated cells are. Well, if things were going wrong all the time, then at least one of those essential chemical pathways would malfunction and the cell would die. Since we are a collection of cells, once all or even enough of the cells died (such as our heart cells), then we would die.

If Pudmuddle is correct, none of us are alive to wonder at Murphy's Law anyway.

What Pudmuddle is attacking, of course, is natural selection. His idea is that all the variations will be wrong. Darwin addressed that:

"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed;... considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. "

Any quibbles about this statement?

 

[serendipity79]

As a creationist, even I would not disprove evolution on acount of murphy's law. many other human and natural laws, perhaps, but that is not one of them

 

[pudmuddle]

The real question at hand, to simplify it a bit-How many times would evolution have to get it right? We are talking astonomical odds.
The hurricane in the junkyard forming a 747 comparison comes to mind. Even given a few billion years to form, order does not magically arise from chaos.
Of course, Murphy's law does not always prove true. But how often in life do we find that simple "five minute job" turning into an all day lessen in patience?
In a perfect world, the gears would always grind smoothly along, but we live in a fallen world....

 

[serendipity79]

oh the odds are definitly not in favor of evolution. if i was a betting man, i would not put my money on evolution. i believe my odds of winning the powerball are much greater, and those are something like 1 in 20 million.

 

[lucaspa]

oh the odds are definitly not in favor of evolution. if i was a betting man, i would not put my money on evolution. i believe my odds of winning the powerball are much greater, and those are something like 1 in 20 million.

This is where people do not understand how natural selection cuts down odds. It converts the very improbable to virtual certainty. Let me give you a simplified example:

You have a 1 in 1024 chance of winning 10 coin tosses in a row. But I can guarantee you I can find someone who can do so. How? Simple, use cumulative selection in the form of a single elimination tournament. I start with 1024 people and pair them up. Then each pair tosses a coin. The 512 winners are selected to go to the next round. Again they are paired and do a coin toss; the 256 winners are selected to go to the next round. Repeat this 7 more times. Now you have 2 people who have won 9 coin tosses in a row. The winner of this round has won 10 coin tosses in a row. And it is a certainty that such a person will be found with this method. We have taken odds of 1 in 1024 and converted that into virtual certainty. Now, I don't know which individual will win the tosses, but it is certain that one of them will, given the algorithm of the competition. Evolution by natural selection is a competition algorithm, more complex but analogous to the single elimination tournament algorithm. We don't have enough knowledge of the total environment to know which individual will have the necessary design elements to compete better, nor in competition between species do we have enough knowledge in most cases to predict which species has the better design. But it is certain that such a competitive edge does exist, and it will be selected for.

 

[lucaspa]

The real question at hand, to simplify it a bit-How many times would evolution have to get it right? We are talking astonomical odds.
The hurricane in the junkyard forming a 747 comparison comes to mind. Even given a few billion years to form, order does not magically arise from chaos.
Of course, Murphy's law does not always prove true. But how often in life do we find that simple "five minute job" turning into an all day lessen in patience?
In a perfect world, the gears would always grind smoothly along, but we live in a fallen world....

But that is where natural selection comes in. It's an algorithm to get design and defeat those long odds. Let's break it down for you:

"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; "

Any argument? Every individual is different from every othe individual. Either by a small amount or a larger amount.

"if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed;"

Again, any argument? We all know that organisms reproduce ever so much faster than food supply can grow, and (with the recent exception of humans) most organisms never reach the age of maturity or reproduction. They are eaten, starve, succumb to disease, do not have enough water, freeze, roast, whatever. Some cases, like the maple tree in my backyard, are extreme. Each year it produces over 10,000 seeds. None of them make it to maturity.

"then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. "

Any argument with the logic? Some of those variations are going to be useful in the competition and give a competitive edge to the individual lucky enough to get it.

"But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; "

Logically, the conclusion is inescapable. Mountains of data show it to be true.

"and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. "

This is the key. The good designs, the "improbable" occurences, get preserved by inheritance. Offspring are not identical to parents, but they are similar, and part of those similarities are the good designs that worked for their parents. So you don't have to start from scratch each time. Instead of a tornado in a junkyard, you can build your 747 slowly, one piece at a time, with only those successful part 747s being kept so that you can add the next piece. In fact, that is how the wing of the new Boeing jets was designed. CW Petit, Touched by nature: putting evolution to work on the assembly line. US News and World Report, 125: 43-45, July 27, 1998.

Yes, we have been looking at natural selection:
"This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]

Try Climbing Mt. Improbable by Richard Dawkins and the first 3 chapters of Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett. Ignore their atheism because it is irrelevant. Concentrate on the descriptions of natural selection and the data.

Since natural selection can work at rates up to 10,000 times what we see in the fossil record, there is plenty of time, even if the 5 minute job takes all day. Or all month, which is 10,000 times longer than 5 minutes.

 

[ern]

But nice try at confusing the issue and trying to save a lost position.

Never hurts to try.

 

[serendipity79]

How is it that humans are the only beings able to debate this. it seems rather odd to me that we are the only "animals" that have the mental capacity to have this debate. while we debate this, all other mammals simply act on impulse and instinct. why are we the only animals that can completely disregard our instinct. extremely unlikely that we are the only creature that can have intelligence. even with the coin toss example someone else got nine straight, so perhaps we are the most intellegent, but all other animals are so far behind us, and in the span of at least the last 10,000 years nothing has changed with them. none have gotten smarter, none have developped new abilities. no new mutations have occurred. the only evolutionary evidence, and i use evidence lightly, took place prior to recorded history. in the most ancient of cave drawings, we do not see any animal with any intelligence. to me that creates many flaws. because if we are evolving in intelligence, then an animal, should also be evolving in intelligence in order to survive.

 

[lucaspa]

How is it that humans are the only beings able to debate this. it seems rather odd to me that we are the only "animals" that have the mental capacity to have this debate. while we debate this, all other mammals simply act on impulse and instinct. why are we the only animals that can completely disregard our instinct. extremely unlikely that we are the only creature that can have intelligence. even with the coin toss example someone else got nine straight, so perhaps we are the most intellegent, but all other animals are so far behind us, and in the span of at least the last 10,000 years nothing has changed with them. none have gotten smarter, none have developped new abilities. no new mutations have occurred. the only evolutionary evidence, and i use evidence lightly, took place prior to recorded history. in the most ancient of cave drawings, we do not see any animal with any intelligence. to me that creates many flaws. because if we are evolving in intelligence, then an animal, should also be evolving in intelligence in order to survive.

Where to start.

In the last 10,000 years many new mutations have occurred. However, humans already have technology and abstract thought. How can any new species enter that niche that's already occupied? We would outcompete them.

As recently as 20,000 years ago there were still species that were very close to us: neandertals and the last of the H. erectus plus remnants of species that are so close skeltally that we can't distinguish the bones from H. sapiens. H. erectus persisted in Indonesia to 20,000 years ago.

What we have now is an artificial situation where it only looks like we were the only species to develop sentience. In another thread Pudmuddle has posted evidence that neandertals buried their dead, made jewelry and other art, may have domesticated animals, had a concept of an afterlife, etc. Yet the genetic evidence has been very clear that neandertals were a separate species. So, if they were still around today, you wouldn't have many of your questions.

As it is, there has been no clear cut demarcation of an essential quality that separates us from all other species. Our technology is impressive, but that is not an essential quality. It often looks like an essential quality, and thus deceives a lot of people, but it isn't. Humans are not the only species, by a long shot, to use or make tools. We are not the only ones with a complex language. Dolphins and many whales also appear to have a complex language and chimps can handle abstract thought. The most recent issue of Discover has an article discussing intelligence and emotions in octopi. Chimps show moral behavior. Organutuans and chimps show intelligence in breaking out of zoos at least equal to, and in some cases exceeding, any examples humans can show of breaking out of prisons.

Also, since we can't communicate with dolphins and other species, we really have no way of telling if we are the only ones to contemplate these questions.

There is a question whether we are still evolving in intelligence. There is a trade-off between brain size, energy, and the size of the birth canal. IOW, our brains can only get so large before they either 1) consume too much energy for the benefit or 2) have such a large head that we kill all women in childbirth. We are increasing our technology, but that is not the same as increasing intelligence.

Also, being intelligent is not the only way to make a good living. And that's all natural selection cares about -- making a good living. Horseshoe crabs make a good living feeding off worms and other small invertebrates in the Chesapeake Bay. What use would more intelligence make to earning that living?

Remember, Serendipity, every feature comes with a price -- a metabolic price. Is the benefit of intelligence for most animals greater than the metabolic price they will have to pay? The answer is "no".

 

[serendipity79]

what use does our vast intelligence make in earning a good living? The apes earn a good living and their tools include sticking as tick into an anthill to pull nts out for lunch. clearly we can survive on less. and the sme goes for dolphins, they clearly do not need to have converstation to have a good living. we are definately the most advaced. you do not see an other animals building anything near the ability that we do. and no other species has come close, why have apes not died off yet, if evolution removes the least fit. why are chetahs, and tigers still around together. if neanderthol man was clearly more fit than an ape, why would an ape outlive him? it doesn't make sense, there are too many unanswered questions in evolution

 

[lucaspa]

what use does our vast intelligence make in earning a good living? The apes earn a good living and their tools include sticking as tick into an anthill to pull nts out for lunch. clearly we can survive on less. and the sme goes for dolphins, they clearly do not need to have converstation to have a good living. we are definately the most advaced.you do not see an other animals building anything near the ability that we do.

We are the most advanced technologically. Technology does not equal intelligence. After all, Archimedes was smarter than you or I but his people had less technology.

Chimps live in the forest. Our ancestors moved to the plains. This made them more vulnerable to predators. Since they had no natural defenses and can't easily climb trees like chimps to escape, anyone with an ability to make more complex tools than a stick to put into an anthill had a competitive advantage over other hominids in 1) beating off predators, 2) killing small animals for food. Also, once hominids began cooperative hunting, we need the intelligence for communication so we could cooperate.

We also made social groups, both for protection against predators and cooperative finding of food. Social groups require more intelligence to understand the social interactions and not screw them up and thus getting kicked out of the group.

Dolphins have what appears to be a complex language because 1) they live in social groups 2) they cooperatively hunt and 3) cooperatively defend themselves against sharks. They don't have hands to manipulate tools, therefore no technology. But they could be as intelligent as us. Their brains are as big as ours.

Humans appear to have two modifications: the ability to make tools to make tools. Other species simply make tools. They don't make tools to then make other tools. That little modification gives you all of our technology. Also, humans have muscles for finer speech sounds than apes. This allows the production of more sounds and combining those sounds into speech than chimps have. Chimps work very well with sign language, but can't make the sounds necessary for complex speech. It's the FOXP2 gene if you are interested. The mutation has been found.

why have apes not died off yet, if evolution removes the least fit. why are chetahs, and tigers still around together. if neanderthol man was clearly more fit than an ape, why would an ape outlive him? it doesn't make sense, there are too many unanswered questions in evolution

There are unanwered questions in every area of science and in theology. Those don't say whether what is known is true or false.

For these question, the remaining great apes live in dense jungle that is inaccessible to humans for a number of reasons, therefore they have not been in direct competition with H. sapiens before. Now that our technology and population pressure is causing us to move into these areas, they are in danger of extinction.

Neandertals, OTOH, lived in Europe and the Mid-East. They weren't in the same area as apes. When H. sapiens migrated into these areas, they ate the same game and lived in the same places that neandertals did. Neandertals and sapiens were in direct competition for the same resources. Sapiens won.

It wasn't an instant victory. On Mt. Shkul in Syria, sapiens and neandertals lived side by side for 60,000 years.

As for lions and cheetahs, they tend to eat different prey. Lions eat the larger wildebeests and zebras while cheetahs eat smaller deer and other animals. However, lions do kill cheetah cubs whenever they find them. So, the answer is that lions and cheetahs do not directly compete. They each have a slightly different ecological niche. Those niches overlap, but they don't overlap totally. Should the environment change to where the niches do totally overlap, then one species will drive the other extinct.

Most of the "unanswered questions" are not really unanswered. You don't know the answers, but there are answers.

Here are some references that you might find useful in understanding this:

32. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=0007B7DC-6738-1DC9-AF71809EC588EEDF WR Leonard, Food for thought, Scientific American, Dec. 2002. Role of diet in human evolution.
9. E Linden, Can animals think? Time 154: 57-60, Sept 6, 1999.
5. M Cartmill, The gift of gab. Discover 19: 56- 64, Nov. 1998. Summary of research into the evolution of language. "the ability to create symbols ... is potentially present in any animal that can learn to interpret natural signs, such as a trail of footprints. Syntax, meanwhile, emerges from the abstract thought required for a social life."
11. CD Frith and U Frith, Interacting minds -- a biological basis, Science 286:1692-1695, Nov. 26, 1999. Describes studies locating ability to "mentalize" -- understand and manipulate other people's mental states. "These studies indicate that the ability to mentalize has evolved from a system for representing actions."
14.WH Calvin and D Bickerton, Lingua ex Machina, Reconciliing Darwin and Chomsky with the Human Brain. MIT Press, 2000. Human language ability arose from Darwinian conversion of function.

 

[-=Burnt Toast=-]

Some interesting stuff

Ah but evolution does not wholly revolve around the survival of the best fit, if you will, i was referring to rather the small mutations that gradually occur.

 

[lucaspa]

Ah but evolution does not wholly revolve around the survival of the best fit, if you will, i was referring to rather the small mutations that gradually occur.

The small mutations that gradually occur are discarded or kept based on whether they aid or hinder survival and reproduction. Except in very small populations, the time it takes for a neutral mutation to become fixed by chance alone is so long that it essentially never happens. By "small populations" we mean populations of 10 or fewer effective breeders.

Now, the "survival of the best fit" also refers to small variations, among which are mutations.

I can show you the equations if you would like.