Statements About Evolution

[Mark Quayle]

Remember, most mutations that we see are likely to be only slight changes, so it's not that far to get there. And even if the chance is one in a million, it's still got a 50% chance of happening in a population of just 500,000.

Lol, as Congress has found out, my mind boggles soon after the number 100!

For all I know, chances are one in a billion. I don't have any reasonable numbers to run.

 

[Kylie]

Lol, as Congress has found out, my mind boggles soon after the number 100!

For all I know, chances are one in a billion. I don't have any reasonable numbers to run.

Neither do I, but I suspect that different mutations would have different probabilities, so I doubt there's any single answer.

 

[Shemjaza]

Then I've been misunderstanding what I took to be an assertion that generally mutation is caused by the environment —that environment generally steers genetics directly, not just by survival of fittest random examples (as I told @Kylie at the beginning of post #198)

Yes, the environment is what affects the frequency of traits not their appearance.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
"It's not mere assertion, but reasoning upon the meaning of 'first cause'. First Cause by definition cannot be caused, not in any way. Thus, cannot be governed in any way or to any degree by external causes."


I thought the logic that the necessary MEANING of the term 'first cause' was pretty obvious. But ok: If FIRST, then first cause cannot be caused —else, would not be first. And cannot be dependent on external causes because, that means it is in some way caused. Singular, because if there are multiple first causes, then they are all dependent in some way on external cause(s) to include, at least, co-existence.

The problem is that yes, if we assume a first cause then yes by definition it is first and a cause... but those are assumptions and assertions not logical conclusions.

There is a first cause therefore there is a first cause is not a useful logic.

Also, multiple examples of a trait do not necessarily a common external cause... and I can't see how this doesn't also apply to hypothetical uncaused sources of cause.

The misleading was deliberate and intended toward certain people, not to those who are [actually] inclined toward God but toward those who are inclined against God. (For what it is worthy, to some degree this also implies that to all of us it is somewhat misleading, because we are all somewhat, or in some ways, inclined against God, having this driving will toward self-determination.)

I think you run into an issue with defining "Disagrees with my interpretation of Genesis" is being "against God".

I also feel adding layers and degrees of deliberate deception just adds to a situation where individual people with honest and even faithful interpretations of their religion and world are being deliberately mislead to different degrees.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The problem is that yes, if we assume a first cause then yes by definition it is first and a cause... but those are assumptions and assertions not logical conclusions.

There is a first cause therefore there is a first cause is not a useful logic.

Also, multiple examples of a trait do not necessarily a common external cause... and I can't see how this doesn't also apply to hypothetical uncaused sources of cause.

What I intended was propositional, if I remember correctly. I am saying that 'IF there is first cause, then this is what it implies'...

If I remember correctly, I said this in response to objections concerning singularity and other 'attributes' ("traits", as you characterize them above (unless you are somehow including this into our discussion of genetics)) of first cause, such as you say here: "I can't see how this doesn't also apply to hypothetical uncaused sources of cause."

As to that —and I assume you mean, hypothetical uncaused causes other than first cause?— (1) If they are also equally first causes, then neither is first. It is self-contradictory. (2) If they are uncaused (self-existent) and they have effects, then they impinge upon the effects of first cause, and therefore 'first cause' is not self-existent, being caused to respond to what is from outside himself. Up til then, all things to which first cause responds are effects from himself. (3) If they are self-existent simultaneously with first cause, then all are under, or are dependent upon, the principle of co-existence, and therefore are not uncaused. (4) If they are self-existent but cause no effects, they don't exist, but are figments of human imagination at best.

I'm puzzled as to what you mean by "multiple examples of traits". Are you describing self-existence or omnipotence as traits?

I think you run into an issue with defining "Disagrees with my interpretation of Genesis" is being "against God".

I don't know if you are saying that this problem happens, or that I am invoking it. But whatever, this part of our discussion had strayed away from TOE, for me, and wasn't about an interpretation of Genesis. But yes, some people think that an interpretation or use of Genesis 1 and 2, different from theirs, pits those holding to the 'false' interpretation against God.

But I was thinking more along the lines of Romans 1, where (to my use of it) to deny the obvious, that this all came from something and was not by accident (chance), is done because one wills to not to believe in God, even if they don't realize it, and so they tend to recede further into enmity with God, unless he does something to change them, or is otherwise gracious to them in restraining evil.

I also feel adding layers and degrees of deliberate deception just adds to a situation where individual people with honest and even faithful interpretations of their religion and world are being deliberately mislead to different degrees.

Doesn't that fit what you said about useful logic? Adding degrees of deliberate deception adds deliberate deception to some degree?

But I think I get your point. To you, it feels unfair towards people who mean to be honest. You might find this CS Lewis quote relevant, that I used when one of my relatives said she was asking God honest questions, after I had said none of us do.

This is from Till We Have Faces, "A Fable Retold": "I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?"

 

[Kylie]

Let's not lose track of the discussion please. The topic is about evolution, not first causes or Bible interpretations.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In a thread that has now closed, I was discussing with @Mark Quayle about evolution.

Specifically, since he had stated that he hadn't studied enough about evolution, he didn't feel that he was in a position to say it was right or wrong, but wanted to hear a convincing argument that evolution was correct before he would accept it.

As such, I proposed that I would make a series of statements about evolution, and Mark would say whether he agreed or disagreed with each statement. We managed to get to two statements that Mark agreed with before the thread was closed. I had presented a third statement, but Mark had not been able to post his reply when then thread was closed.

I sent him a message asking if he wished to continue that specific part of our discussion in a new thread, and he agreed to it, so I have started this thread so our discussion on the different statements about evolution can continue. I would like to keep this thread confined to a discussion about the statements I present and not a general thread about the arguments for and against evolution.

As a refresher, these are the previous statements, and Mark's responses to them:

Original post

Original Post

Original Post

Original Post

These two statements I presented, and Mark agreed with them both. I presented my third statement, but as I said, the thread was closed before Mark could answer. I shall present my third statement again:

You have agreed that in a population of animals, there are variations, and you have agreed that these variations have a genetic basis.

Statement 3: When individual animals in this population reproduce, the genes they have are passed on to their offspring. So, the offspring carries genes from both of its parents.

Do you agree with this?

Do you remember the Title of that closed thread? I can't seem to find it.

Actually, what I'm looking for is that name of the sarcastic poster from Taiwan who made the most appropriate and beautiful comment: "Only you, if that many, know what what you are talking about.", if I remember correctly. I wanted to use the quote, but attribute it.

Nevermind. I found the name, but not the thread. It was @Estrid

 

[Shemjaza]

Do you remember the Title of that closed thread? I can't seem to find it.

Actually, what I'm looking for is that name of the sarcastic poster from Taiwan who made the most appropriate and beautiful comment: "Only you, if that many, know what what you are talking about.", if I remember correctly. I wanted to use the quote, but attribute it.

Nevermind. I found the name, but not the thread. It was @Estrid

(I think she's from Hong Kong.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

(I think she's from Hong Kong.)

Thanks. You know how those cities all look alike

 

[Kylie]

Do you remember the Title of that closed thread? I can't seem to find it.

Actually, what I'm looking for is that name of the sarcastic poster from Taiwan who made the most appropriate and beautiful comment: "Only you, if that many, know what what you are talking about.", if I remember correctly. I wanted to use the quote, but attribute it.

Nevermind. I found the name, but not the thread. It was @Estrid

it's the "purposes of mosquitos" thread. I included links to several posts from that thread in my OP here.

 

[Mark Quayle]

it's the "purposes of mosquitos" thread. I included links to several posts from that thread in my OP here.

Haha! That's right! Funny how a thread evolves!

 

[Estrid]

(I think she's from Hong Kong.)

And Taiwan is not a city.

 

[Kylie]

Dang, this thread slipped through the cracks, didn't it?

Anyway...

I've spoken with @Mark Quayle about several things in this thread regarding how the process of evolution takes place.

In a population of animals, different individuals have slightly different traits. These traits usually have some genetic component to them. When individuals reproduce, the genes for these traits can be passed on from parent to offspring. If the trait makes it more likely that the individual will produce more offspring, then (all other things being equal), that trait will tend to spread throughout the population over many generations. If the trait makes it LESS likely that individual will reproduce, then the trait will tend to die out over generations.

Mark has commented on this thread with some questions and requested clarifications, which I hope I've addressed to his satisfaction. I'd like to ask now, is there anything regarding the above that you still have questions about?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Dang, this thread slipped through the cracks, didn't it?

Anyway...

I've spoken with @Mark Quayle about several things in this thread regarding how the process of evolution takes place.

In a population of animals, different individuals have slightly different traits. These traits usually have some genetic component to them. When individuals reproduce, the genes for these traits can be passed on from parent to offspring. If the trait makes it more likely that the individual will produce more offspring, then (all other things being equal), that trait will tend to spread throughout the population over many generations. If the trait makes it LESS likely that individual will reproduce, then the trait will tend to die out over generations.

Mark has commented on this thread with some questions and requested clarifications, which I hope I've addressed to his satisfaction. I'd like to ask now, is there anything regarding the above that you still have questions about?

Not that come immediately to mind. Please continue.

 

[Kylie]

Not that come immediately to mind. Please continue.

Imagine we had access to a time machine. If we could look at the population at some particular point, say, Year 1, and then we used our time machine to travel forwards in time 100,000 years, we would expect to see some changes in the traits of the population, yes?

For example, if the climate had been growing steadily colder over that time period, then any individual among the population that had a slightly thicker than average coat would have a benefit. It could, after all, withstand slightly colder temperatures, and thus would be more likely to survive colder periods, and thus be more likely to produce more offspring than a different individual without this trait. So, in this case, we would see that the animals in year 100,000 had thicker coats than the animals in year 1. The climate growing colder is an example of a "selective pressure," something which means that only some of the traits provide benefits.

And that's just one example of a selective pressure. Another one could be the result of the changes over time themselves.

Let's say the population of animals eats the leaves of trees. If there's a tree which grows slightly taller, then this trait is a benefit to it. It is less likely to have its leaves eaten, and therefore it is going to find it easier to survive. After all, it has more photosynthesis factories than a tree that is shorter and has its leaves more heavily cropped. So, over time, we'd expect to see the trees get taller. But of course, this would drive the animals to grow taller, either by longer legs, longer necks, etc. An animal that has a longer than average neck will be able to eat from more trees than an animal that has an average length neck. So, it times of hardship, this animal will have access to food that other animals can't reach. This again is a benefit, and so the long neck trait will spread throughout the population over many generations. If we were to look at this animal/tree ecosystem at year 1 and then look at it again in year 100,000, we'd likely see that both the animals and the trees were taller.

Would you agree with this?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Imagine we had access to a time machine. If we could look at the population at some particular point, say, Year 1, and then we used our time machine to travel forwards in time 100,000 years, we would expect to see some changes in the traits of the population, yes?

For example, if the climate had been growing steadily colder over that time period, then any individual among the population that had a slightly thicker than average coat would have a benefit. It could, after all, withstand slightly colder temperatures, and thus would be more likely to survive colder periods, and thus be more likely to produce more offspring than a different individual without this trait. So, in this case, we would see that the animals in year 100,000 had thicker coats than the animals in year 1. The climate growing colder is an example of a "selective pressure," something which means that only some of the traits provide benefits.

And that's just one example of a selective pressure. Another one could be the result of the changes over time themselves.

Let's say the population of animals eats the leaves of trees. If there's a tree which grows slightly taller, then this trait is a benefit to it. It is less likely to have its leaves eaten, and therefore it is going to find it easier to survive. After all, it has more photosynthesis factories than a tree that is shorter and has its leaves more heavily cropped. So, over time, we'd expect to see the trees get taller. But of course, this would drive the animals to grow taller, either by longer legs, longer necks, etc. An animal that has a longer than average neck will be able to eat from more trees than an animal that has an average length neck. So, it times of hardship, this animal will have access to food that other animals can't reach. This again is a benefit, and so the long neck trait will spread throughout the population over many generations. If we were to look at this animal/tree ecosystem at year 1 and then look at it again in year 100,000, we'd likely see that both the animals and the trees were taller.

Would you agree with this?

With the tendency, yes. This is basically a summary of what we've already been through. Proceed.

 

[Kylie]

With the tendency, yes. This is basically a summary of what we've already been through. Proceed.

Okay, now, let's say that the population at Year 1 happens to go through some event that separates them. Maybe there's an unusually heavy snowfall in the mountains which results in a flood, and that changes the course of the river. Now, the population is divided. One group is on the north side of the river where there are the plains with grasslands for grazing, but predators that hunt. And on the south of the river, there are fewer predators, but rougher terrain and less food. The pressures that act on the north-siders will be different to the pressures that act on the south-siders, yes? And so the traits that are favoured in the north-siders are likely going to be different to the traits favoured in the south-siders. So, if we come back at year 100,000, we'd expect to see that the north siders and the south siders would be quite different, wouldn't we?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Okay, now, let's say that the population at Year 1 happens to go through some event that separates them. Maybe there's an unusually heavy snowfall in the mountains which results in a flood, and that changes the course of the river. Now, the population is divided. One group is on the north side of the river where there are the plains with grasslands for grazing, but predators that hunt. And on the south of the river, there are fewer predators, but rougher terrain and less food. The pressures that act on the north-siders will be different to the pressures that act on the south-siders, yes? And so the traits that are favoured in the north-siders are likely going to be different to the traits favoured in the south-siders. So, if we come back at year 100,000, we'd expect to see that the north siders and the south siders would be quite different, wouldn't we?

Why not? How different?

 

[Kylie]

Why not? How different?

The degree of difference that we'd see would depend on several factors, such as how much impact the selective pressures imposed and how much time had elapsed.

For example, if there was some selective pressure that had a large impact, we'd expect that the difference in reproduction between those individuals that had advantageous variations and those that had detrimental traits would be greater than if the impact was small.

And, of course, the more time we allowed, the more time the selective pressures would have to act on the population.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

In a thread that has now closed, I was discussing with @Mark Quayle about evolution.

Specifically, since he had stated that he hadn't studied enough about evolution, he didn't feel that he was in a position to say it was right or wrong, but wanted to hear a convincing argument that evolution was correct before he would accept it.

As such, I proposed that I would make a series of statements about evolution, and Mark would say whether he agreed or disagreed with each statement. We managed to get to two statements that Mark agreed with before the thread was closed. I had presented a third statement, but Mark had not been able to post his reply when then thread was closed.

I sent him a message asking if he wished to continue that specific part of our discussion in a new thread, and he agreed to it, so I have started this thread so our discussion on the different statements about evolution can continue. I would like to keep this thread confined to a discussion about the statements I present and not a general thread about the arguments for and against evolution.

As a refresher, these are the previous statements, and Mark's responses to them:

Original post

Original Post

Original Post

Original Post

These two statements I presented, and Mark agreed with them both. I presented my third statement, but as I said, the thread was closed before Mark could answer. I shall present my third statement again:

You have agreed that in a population of animals, there are variations, and you have agreed that these variations have a genetic basis.

Statement 3: When individual animals in this population reproduce, the genes they have are passed on to their offspring. So, the offspring carries genes from both of its parents.

Do you agree with this?

I only have a limited understanding of evolution so I'm just going to enjoy reading but I just wanted to say that I really appreciate your and others' input here and I marvel at your patience. Thank you.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Probabilities have nothing to do with it.

Just a few elements were created, then those elements were mixed and matched to configure this entire universe which, as I said before, is at least 94 billion light years wide.

What were they created from, AV?