Explain love, heroism and forgiveness if life is merely survival of the fittest?

[ForEverAfter]

What are the new theories?
Do you think any of them are more viable than evolution?
Do you accept any of them as a plausible model / the most plausible model?

I question it myself

Of course, any rational-minded person would.
Spiders can walk on the ceiling, FFS!

 

[methamaniac]

What are the new theories?
Do you think any of them are more viable than evolution?
Do you accept any of them as a plausible model / the most plausible model?

http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

(Srry to tired to summarize)

IMO, the more they learn the more they need a new mechanism.
I'll let you imagine the mechanism.

Of course, any rational-minded person would.
Spiders can walk on the ceiling, FFS!

I question it as a force.

 

[swilow]

assimilate*
(I type with my thumbs and am a lazy proofreader��

How so?

For a need to arise and be catered for, some form of intent would seem apparent. Evolution caters for such needs through chance, and we don't know much about the negative or aborted outcomes. Design would either anticipate this need or allay it if it arose consistently, otherwise it would just seem like evolution. And we can see plenty of circumstances where lifeforms are proving ill equipped to deal with the input of a new, 'toxin' into their environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans sports some interesting qualities.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I question it as a force.

I'm sorry, I assumed you were joking.

What do you question about gravity?

 

[Journyman16]

2. Journyman, do you believe that evolution is the best model (let's forget the word theory, for the sake of avoiding semantics) we have? / Do you believe in evolution?

Do I believe in it? I try quite persistently not to believe in anything.

I will accept that Evolution is currently a good fit to the facts we do have, with the proviso that a number of parts of it are speculative.

I'd like to see some answers as to just how the conversion of bases in genes works so well that in such a short time, we could have life developing and changing to fit conditions. If you have an answer to how mutation can work when A can only connect to T and G only to C, I'd be interested.

I haven't seen an explanation for that yet.

Also there are some underlying assumptions I have problems with. That the mutation 'tick' could be consistent is one. HUGE background assumption there that mutagens in the environment never change.

Another issue is the supposed 'build up' of mutations to allow the explosion of life after an ELE - I don't see the mechanism that would allow that to occur and yet the evidence seems to say it does. If the process described is correct then the usual rate of change should simply continue on and vacated eco-niches would be recolonised with new species over longer periods, not in a rush as it seems to be.

It's possible that's just a result of new niches being available, but we still have to account for all the changes that have to randomly occur for all those new species to suddenly find 'fit' environments.

And we still don't have convincing evidence for one species becoming another. Seeing a tiny bone in this species that is like a tiny bone in that species doesn't cut it now we know viruses and other mechanisms can transfer genes from one form to another.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Okay, fair enough.
Thanks for the response.

I try quite persistently not to believe in anything.

1. Isn't that maddening?
2. Doesn't disbelieving in the Big Bang qualify as a belief?

 

[methamaniac]

I'm sorry, I assumed you were joking.

What do you question about gravity?

I was in respect...
Its a "fictitious" force. (look it up)
Have an elevator cord snap while you are on top of it and see where gravity goes.
Gravity appears to be relative.
Maybe the real "force" exits in another dimension.

Do I believe in it? I try quite persistently not to believe in anything.

Let me know how that works out for ya

I will accept that Evolution is currently a good fit to the facts we do have, with the proviso that a number of parts of it are speculative.

My b.s. meter works to good for me to
believe in current model

I'd like to see some answers as to just how the conversion of bases in genes works so well that in such a short time, we could have life developing and changing to fit conditions.
If you have an answer to how mutation can work when A can only connect to T and G only to C, I'd be interested.

Problem # 6372 Language barrier ☺

Another issue is the supposed 'build up' of mutations to allow the explosion of life after an ELE - I don't see the mechanism that would allow that to occur and yet the evidence seems to say it does.

This one would really trouble me if I believed in current model.
Imo it directly implies that the evolution has a purpose and somehow has intelligence
(Im sure you will say awareness but I can't seperate the two at a complex level like this)

If the process described is correct then the usual rate of change should simply continue on and vacated eco-niches would be recolonised with new species over longer periods, not in a rush as it seems to be.

"Can I get a Amen "? Yes, you can

Somehow they got explain 400 million years of statis and rapid evolution in respect at the same time.
How do you keep accumulating mutations with no change?
I find it quite entertaining reading the clever escape mechanisms that can be posited by evo's.
This is why theory is unfalisifiable. You always got imaginative scenarios as an out.
Two opposing predictions woven into theory---
clever I tell ya, clever

It's possible that's just a result of new niches being available, but we still have to account for all the changes that have to randomly occur for all those new species to suddenly find 'fit' environments.

Maybe environment adapts to the changes in the species ☺

And we still don't have convincing evidence for one species becoming another. Seeing a tiny bone in this species that is like a tiny bone in that species doesn't cut it now we know viruses and other mechanisms can transfer genes from one form to another.

Retroviruses bring disease, deficiency, and death.
Not a great mechanism
If an organism gets a gene transferred it is no good to it respect to morphology unless it gets the other genes to go with transferred too.
Evolution still has to explain how creatures developed convergent features and functions
when they were no where around each other
in location or time.

Bugs have wings and birds have wings,
birds obviously got their wings from bugs.

 

[p-helix]

Is need what drives evolution?
If a species needs something bad enough will it eventually get it?

Conciousness, life and evolution are closely connected, of course. Energy is needed to continue living and change happens with time. Just because 'a species needs something bad enough' it still might not get it, for lack of resources, but there would be trying involved. Trying to live, trying to die.

What about consciousness?
Was there a first animal in a species to have it?
Or did a bunch of animals within the species have the light bulb go off at once?
I mean to me logically at some point the light bulb needs to turned on.
Maybe you can imagine a scenario where it can come on very slowly, but not me.
I'm afraid my imagination isn't vast enough for that.
It also isn't large enough to imagine how the two sexes and their by-product could evolve slowly over time.
Seems you are either preggers or you aren't.
literally and figuratively.
Looks like an all or nothing conundrum to me.
I view conciousness the same way.

Organic change is the way with time. No two life-forms are the same. How exactly do you view conciousness? There are many definitions I guess, but I would include matter into the conciousness equation. Also, I would say plants and trees for example are concious, whether they are merely concious of light, temperature, the wind, particles, themselves or 'conciousness itself'; not being animals, there is no brain but a cambium, they protect themselves from pests and diseases, form relationships with other organisms and adapt according to their environment. Perhaps we are all products of an envirionment which includes conciousness. Planets and stars, galaxies and atoms are all parts of conciousness and we are examples of their organic, sun-loving, fruiting bodies, the life-forms they produce.

 

[methamaniac]

Just because 'a species needs something bad enough' it still might not get it, for lack of resources

The resource that would be lacking is specified information from intelligence

but there would be trying involved.

If I needed to let's say fly from one side of a canyon to another how would trying to fly with my arms (even an infinite number of times) ever get me there naturally. Would it be remotely beneficial trying?

How exactly do you view conciousness?

Intelligently aware of what is going on would be a general definition of mine.
Being able to think with reason and add new specified information to the memory based on this reason would start getting a little more specific.

Also, I would say plants and trees for example are concious, whether they are merely concious of light, temperature, the wind, particles, themselves or 'conciousness itself

We can program a robot to respond to such things as tempature, wind, light etc but that gives them no consciousness. Robots can not program themselves with new specified information.
They just execute what commands they are given.

There are many definitions I guess, but I would include matter into the conciousness equation.

Yes, may describe consciousness different but that doesn't affect what it is.
I tend to see consciousness seperate from the
body/matter.
I look at it like information stored on a form of light. The light is awareness and how the light is
arranged and behaves makes it conscious.
The more light and more information- the more consciousness.

Perhaps we are all products of an
envirionment which includes conciousness.

I believe we all exist in the environment, but the environment itself isn't what produces us.

Planets and stars, galaxies and atoms are all parts of conciousness and we are examples of their organic, sun-loving, fruiting bodies, the life-forms they produce.

All your examples above are borrowing "light" from the big conciousness. Whether we/they can keep it or not is the question.
I think it is possible.

 

[Journyman16]

Okay, fair enough.
Thanks for the response.
1. Isn't that maddening?
2. Doesn't disbelieving in the Big Bang qualify as a belief?

Nope, to the contrary, not believing is quite a good place to be. It fits an enquiring mind and provides a stable platform from which to investigate life and the Universe.

It also allowed me to move into a more spiritual view of things where the previous Science-oriented view meant I had lots of 'unexplaineds' to try to reconcile.

Not, I don't 'disbelieve' in the Big Bang. That's not the same thing as 'not believing' - an Agnostic doesn't believe in God and doesn't believe there is no God; an Atheist disbelieves in God. Subtle but the difference is there, IMV at least.

And by not believing in the Big Bang I was able to see the evidence against it and not simply reject it the way so many have. Arp was a professional astronomer for decades and his profession turned against him because he had evidence that disproved the Big Bang - rather than act as Scientists and investigate, they chose vilification instead.

And I think that answers methamaniac's question as well - so far it's working out quite well for me. I see myself as a sceptic who needs evidence that something should be allowed to be real in my mind. Experience has taught me that Science-type 'evidence' is not the only sort, which allows me to move towards reconciliation of the Solid and the Spiritual.

I was described recently as someone who "reads against the grain" - it means I tend to see things other than the message that is meant to be conveyed. I find it a handy trait and it helps me NOT get programmed by the MSM.

And I separate faith from belief. Belief is a limiting factor - believe something and at times you literally do not see anything which conflicts with it. To me, Faith is a higher order attribute - I can have faith in something and still see that it isn't that way.

 

[methamaniac]

^
Stay in skeptical mode.
It seems you are accomplishing it.☺(truly)

I used to be so skeptical that I was skeptical of being skeptical.
So I finally decided to give in.

 

[ForEverAfter]

From our discussions Journyman, you seem to sway towards the belief that the Big Bang didn't happen.
As I said in another post, I don't think it's possible to not orient yourself one way or the other.

Nobody knows that the Big Bang happened. To believe it happened means you sway towards the belief that it happened.
When people say they believe in evolution, that doesn't mean there is no room for doubt.

I don't see the difference between what you're describing and anyone else on this forum.

And by not believing in the Big Bang I was able to see the evidence against it

I can see the evidence against it, and I can weigh that up against the evidence for it.
Again, I really don't see the significance of what you're saying.

You said you don't believe in anything.
I think you're just being pedantic about the word "believe".

Do you believe that gravity exists?
I believe that it does, because I've weighed up the evidence for and against it.
It is totally possible to convince me that it doesn't exist, but this is yet to happen.
My belief doesn't blind me or disallow me to change. I haven't locked it in, for ever.

Do you believe that you're contributing to this thread?
Do you believe that you need to expel urine on a regular basis?
Do you believe that sexually transmitted diseases exist?
Do you believe/disbelieve Earth is flat?

I think your definition of belief is limited...

1.2... Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion

meth, you've made it quite clear that you disbelieve in evolution and that you literally believe in Genesis... So none of this applies to you.

Journeyman, you haven't maintained neutrality throughout our discussions. You clearly sway in one direction or another, on every topic. Personally, I don't see any difference (or very little) between you and everyone else on this forum in terms of what you believe. You have a firmly held opinion that the Big Bang is unlikely to have occurred. This is based on you weighing up the evidence. I have a firmly held opinion that the Big Bang (or something like it) probably did occur, based on the evidence. What's the difference?

(You have even firmer opinions about your interpretations of scripture and the intentions of those who wrote the NT/OT.)

I don't think what you're attempting to do is possible... (or, at least, you're nowhere near achieving it yet.)

If you don't believe you need to expel urine or eat, for example, how is that going to work?

...

Blind faith is no good, but neither is blind skepticism.

 

[sekio]

I'd like to see some answers as to just how the conversion of bases in genes works so well that in such a short time, we could have life developing and changing to fit conditions. If you have an answer to how mutation can work when A can only connect to T and G only to C, I'd be interested.

I haven't seen an explanation for that yet.

all bases can pair (wobble pairs, hoogsteen pairs) it's just that A-T and C-G interactions are the most energetically favorable. Also the enzymes that manipulate DNA are actually quite... flexible in terms of what nucleotides they will accept, scientists have actually engineered organisms with a fifth and sixth nucleobase, that is duplicated by standard DNA replication enzymes.

And we still don't have convincing evidence for one species becoming another.

Well actually, we have lots of evidence, it's just nothing as major as "this cat had a littler of monkeys"... Flu viruses, the e.coli mutation experiment, several types of insects, molds & other single celled pests... For instance there are beetles that attack pine trees of various sorts that 50 years ago were a homogenous species, but as they geographically spread to new locations they become unable to interbreed with the original population and begin to respond to new or different chemical signals in the environment (e.g. new species). (several Ips/Dendroctonous beetles).

And by not believing in the Big Bang I was able to see the evidence against it and not simply reject it the way so many have.

The causality is wrong there... evidence should influence belief, not the other way around. Science is not people sitting down and saying "well obviously the big bang happened, what can we find to corroborate that", it was from e.g. observations of red shift in galaxies, cosmic microwave background, and other observations being looked at holistically to draw a conclusion.

If you want some really quality grade A bullshit I suggest you read this ""blog"" which "proves" that among other things, space travel is impossible except for the space shuttle, the world is concave, and the Sun is really a humongous light bulb.

 

[Journyman16]

all bases can pair (wobble pairs, hoogsteen pairs) it's just that A-T and C-G interactions are the most energetically favorable. Also the enzymes that manipulate DNA are actually quite... flexible in terms of what nucleotides they will accept, scientists have actually engineered organisms with a fifth and sixth nucleobase, that is duplicated by standard DNA replication enzymes.

Well actually, we have lots of evidence, it's just nothing as major as "this cat had a littler of monkeys"... Flu viruses, the e.coli mutation experiment, several types of insects, molds & other single celled pests... For instance there are beetles that attack pine trees of various sorts that 50 years ago were a homogenous species, but as they geographically spread to new locations they become unable to interbreed with the original population and begin to respond to new or different chemical signals in the environment (e.g. new species). (several Ips/Dendroctonous beetles).

Thanks for that - gives me something to look for.

The causality is wrong there... evidence should influence belief, not the other way around. Science is not people sitting down and saying "well obviously the big bang happened, what can we find to corroborate that", it was from e.g. observations of red shift in galaxies, cosmic microwave background, and other observations being looked at holistically to draw a conclusion.

I kinda have to disagree. The published papers in SciAm, Nature and Science did not read that way at the time. SINCE then the rhetoric has changed but back in the 70's and 80's it was literally, "we can't change the BB so how do we make it work." Redshift was seen an the unalterable fact that had to be accommodated and tired light (as one example) was given short shrift with some rather (it seemed to me) offhand dismissal papers about it.

But as I mentioned, when we have even one pair of objects where a high RS is physically connected to a low RS then clearly RS = velocity (& thus, distance) has a gaping hole in it. General Systems Theory and Dynamic Steady State Universe theory both provide better prediction of how the Universe IS along with many other predictions that are proving accurate. They are not really in conflict (if my understanding is anywhere near right) as GST talks more about how matter and energy came/comes into being and DSSU talks more about what is out there right now.

Not sure I have the time for 'Grade A BS' :D

 

[Journyman16]

all bases can pair (wobble pairs, hoogsteen pairs) it's just that A-T and C-G interactions are the most energetically favorable. Also the enzymes that manipulate DNA are actually quite... flexible in terms of what nucleotides they will accept, scientists have actually engineered organisms with a fifth and sixth nucleobase, that is duplicated by standard DNA replication enzymes.

I do have a question on this though...

A quick read of wobble pairs and hoogsteens (& yes, I know quick is dirty and I will go back for more :D) suggests these are not normal base pairs. Mind you I have read that uracil might at one time have been a mainstream base but the implications of that are a bit out there, seeming to pretty much need someone to interfere with human DNA.

But I am wondering, given these are not normal DNA bases, even though wobbles seem RNA ones, how does a mutagen change A/T or G/C pairs without detroying the bonds and thus the genes. Wouldn't a chromosome with damaged base pairs be rejected/repaired in the breeding process?

 

[methamaniac]

actual fact there are zero evidences of Evolution producing anything OTHER than adaptations. To this day there are no inter-breed fossils. (and please do not do the wolf-whale thing, OK?)

Whales evolution: http://youtu.be/8cn0kf8mhS4

Here's your dam transitional fossils!

(Srry J-man I couldn't resist. Consider it a little comic relief.)

 

[sekio]

But I am wondering, given these are not normal DNA bases, even though wobbles seem RNA ones, how does a mutagen change A/T or G/C pairs without detroying the bonds and thus the genes. Wouldn't a chromosome with damaged base pairs be rejected/repaired in the breeding process?

Not all mutagens react in the exact same way, some damage bases irreparably making enzymes fail to read past that point, some simply damage the backbone of DNA, some simply intercalate in between 2 bases and can make certain enzymes misread one base as another, some can e.g. methylate certain nucleobases which also causes some bases to read as others.

The thing you should remember is that enzymes are not always ultra picky about what fits around their active sites.

 

[Journyman16]

Whales evolution: http://youtu.be/8cn0kf8mhS4
Here's your dam transitional fossils!
(Srry J-man I couldn't resist. Consider it a little comic relief.)

LOL - I like the change from Kutchicetus to Dorudon - seemed so natural... Not... :D

I note kutchicetus isn't in the bones picture I posted above - maybe someone else thought all those question marks instead of fossils was all a bit much? :D

 

[Journyman16]

Not all mutagens react in the exact same way, some damage bases irreparably making enzymes fail to read past that point, some simply damage the backbone of DNA, some simply intercalate in between 2 bases and can make certain enzymes misread one base as another, some can e.g. methylate certain nucleobases which also causes some bases to read as others.

The thing you should remember is that enzymes are not always ultra picky about what fits around their active sites.

OK... but aren't you talking about the ability to pass along the changes here? How about before that stage, where the DNA gets changed and the read has to occur to form the sperm or egg?

If an enzyme reads one base as another, doesn't it also have to read the linked base as the opposite or the eventual reconstruction of DNA will fail? Is it Thyamine and Uracil that are very similar? So if Thyamine gets misread, doesn't Adenine also have to change, or the eventual DNA strand will have something wrong with it.

 

[methamaniac]

LOL - I like the change from Kutchicetus to Dorudon - seemed so natural... Not... :D

I note kutchicetus isn't in the bones picture I posted above - maybe someone else thought all those question marks instead of fossils was all a bit much? :D

Artististic liscence-
It helps when you are trying to mold the evidence to fit a particular theory.