Moderator: Moderators
From what I know about the nature of DNA, genetics and Mendels laws of genetics (namely that are inherent species limitations imposed by the genetic makeup of all living things) the account about Adam and Eve, ie two humans parenting the human race, seems to me to be the most plausible explanation of our origins.
TSGracchus wrote:Reality is determined.
Really? Are you possibly talking about quantum entanglement? If so, I don't think it says what you think it does. It might help if you supplied a citation justifying your statement.In Q.M. every particle is influenced by every other particle.
All washed down with a nice Hamiltonian, no doubt, with a brace of Cauchy–Riemann equations for starters.TSGracchus wrote: [Replying to post 98 by mgb]
Observation involves uncertainty. Prediction involves uncertainty. Reality is determined. Think of the quantum probabilities as the cosines of Euler angles, though not necessarily cartesian or even affine. The magnitude of the dot product of the vector with itself is 1. The periodic probabilities of space-time sum to 1.
The difference being that you are of the opinion or mindset that these variations arise through mutations of a basic information set, forming new information. Whereas, I’m of the opinion or mindset that it is a combination, recombination or sorting of pre-existing information with mutations only providing a minuscule amount of variation and that usually deleterious. In other words, you appear to come from the single or universal common ancestor path and I from the common ancestor of created families or kind (baramin). A single tree of life as opposed to an orchard of trees of life.TSGracchus wrote: [Replying to post 45 by Still small]
Still small: �Variation within species is due more so to combinations and specialisation of existing alleles within the genome, not new information from mutations.�
You ignore the fact of differing alleles. In a population of uniform genome there would be no variation in for instance, blood type or eye color. As I pointed out in the example of small mammals, it is indeed selection and recombination that will determination of in which direction the species evolves.
Still small: The recombination or specialisation allows for species adaptation to particular niches within the environment.�
That is the point I made in the hypothetical example I gave. Selection operates on existing variations.
This may be true of major deleterious mutations which would be selected against quickly but as most mutations are only slightly deleterious, they can accumulate within a population until a point when they are selected against, removing large portions of or entire populations.Still small: �Whilst mutations can and do occur, the ratio of deleterious to beneficial mutations, one would more likely see a weakening of the population before a benefit.�
And since there is competition for mates and resources, those with deleterious mutations are more likely to be selected out. I also pointed this out. Perhaps, you were fatigued and missed it?
Moreover, you seem to overlook that what is a deleterious mutation in one environment could be beneficial under different conditions.
My point being that it occurs after a period of accumulation within a population of slightly deleterious/near neutral mutations, affecting large portions or entire populations.Still small: �Any major change in the entire environment would see a major culling of unsuitable variations, leaving only the better suited variations. That is, until there is another major shift in environmental factors, resulting in the remainder being unfit for survival.�
That was exactly my point, explicitly stated, which you now seem to be trying to claim as an argument for your position. Are you on medication?
Oh, I understand how evolution is supposed to work, I just don’t accept it to the level of ToE. I hold to the idea of specialisation of species for adaptation to various environmental niches via varying combinations of pre-existing alleles and epigenetics, being a loss of information within new species. To a far less degree, mutations providing only rare and often deleterious changes of information.And as those deleterious mutations accumulate those individuals carrying them will become more and more likely to be culled, selected out. That is how evolution works. I have specifically made this point before. Perhaps your reading skills are somehow impaired?
Agreed but the point being that our greater ability to survive is due to improved knowledge to deal with problems arising from genetic entropy, not from improved genetic information via new mutations.Still small: �To a greater degree, many humans only survive due to the provided medical support to deal with medical and health conditions, without which they would die.�
That point was already addressed in the brief discussion of dogs. Perhaps it is your memory that is impaired?
Probably just a clear example of adaptation to a new or different environmental niche via alleles and epigenetic, utilising pre-existing information (as opposed to reliance on new ‘beneficial’ mutations) and transposable elements (TE) in the genome which are known to cause complex mutations when they are activated. Their activation is not random; they are activated by stress. Stress, most often environmental stress, is known to induce TEs to become active and produce an adaptive response that tends to relieve that stress. The mechanism for the activation of a TE, and its ability to produce an adaptive response is endogenous in the organism. How this mechanism could have evolved is unknown, but its presence in many organisms is undeniable and it is likely to be universal.Still small: �Can you provide references to articles, etc, that conclude or indicate that “[t]he early ancestors of Latimeria, the coelocanths, used to live quite close to the surface�?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
You will note that the closest living relatives per DNA are lungfishes which are not benthic forms. The Latimeria were first recognized as related to fossilized pelagic forms. .@
If you wish more information, citations of the original literature are provided at the bottom of the article.
No, not an oversight, just an expectation that you may have read them as posted in my reply to Neatras in post 43. But I can post more if you wish (unfortunately, the university library to which I have access usually only has hard copies or “restricted access databases�, thus my posting of internet links).Still small: �No, I think, by doing a bit of added research in to relevant articles on my own, I’ve been able to navigate through the waters you’ve attempted to ‘muddy up’. Hopefully, you too, by reading those papers will get a clearer understanding of the matter.�
No doubt by simple oversight, you have neglected to cite "those papers". I will be happy to discuss the papers you perused, as I do have access to a university library as well as the internet.
If you choose to believe so, anyway -Still, I would recommend that you go back over my posts and your own. The “muddy waters�, I think you will find, are an artifact of your own flawed reasoning and/or imperfect reading skills, unless of course, that you are yourself stirring up the benthic mud of abyssal ignorance. But that couldn't be! You have, no doubt, made an extensive study of biology at the graduate or at least the undergraduate level.
And why is there a higher incidence of cancer due to people living longer? The longer one lives, the more duplication of DNA for normal cell replacement which leads to a greater accumulation of deleterious mutations within one’s cells, increasing the possibility/probability of cancer. Genetic entropy.DrNoGods wrote: [Replying to post 44 by Still small]
Our greater lifespan and survival is due more to the increase of health standards and medical knowledge where we can treat disease, resulting from deleterious mutation accumulation, and thus preserving the deleterious genes, thereby weakening the population overall. Hence the increases of such occurrences of various cancers and other medical conditions.
But again, there are other factors to consider. Because of the improved health care, better diets, development of drugs and other treatments that increase human life spans, people are indeed living longer. Diseases like cancer have a higher probability of developing the longer one lives. So, independent of the reasons for longer life spans, you would expect higher rates of cancer simply because more people are living for longer, therefore increasing their probability of eventually developing cancer.
These issues are very complicated when it comes to quantifying every cause and effect, but you must consider all of the inputs and weigh them properly in order to draw any conclusions. (Emphasis added)
brunumb wrote: [Replying to post 98 by mgb]
Really? Are you possibly talking about quantum entanglement? If so, I don't think it says what you think it does. It might help if you supplied a citation justifying your statement.In Q.M. every particle is influenced by every other particle.
Sean Carroll addresses Cox's description in "Everything is Connected" here:"There is an intimacy between the particles that make up our universe that extends across the universe...when anything changes then everything else must instantaneously adjust itself such that no two fermions are ever in the same energy level."
Yes, he confirms the interconnectivity of things, he just has issues about how Cox explains it;-brunumb wrote: Sean Carroll addresses Cox's description in "Everything is Connected" here:
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blo ... connected/
No. You are misrepresenting what Carroll said. Read the whole article.Yes, he confirms the interconnectivity of things, he just has issues about how Cox explains it;-
