Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Sure, extinctions happen, where deaths outnumber births, for long enough time that it draws down the pool of that species to zero. Just another process of evolution.
But an entire species going extinct just because they "just missed" the ledge is silly. Especially if that species population numbered in the 1000's or more.
Just because a visual system progresses beyond the capabilities of the brain does not mean the species will fail to survive or even thrive. There are quite a few deep ocean animals or animals that live almost exclusively in the earth that have eyes they do not use. That their eye's give information that is wrong. It is also pretty simple for a brain to simply ignore sensory input especially if is not useful to them or their parents going back 100's or 1000's of generations.
When you say evolution from scratch, you are talking about the first cellular forms of life. They had no eyes, no ears, no sensory organs at all. After billions upon billions of cycles of evolution they slowly began to evolve. It is pretty easy to see how eyes developed the way they are given billions of tries of slight variations to get to the point we are at today. With dna it does not have to "start over" each time, it can take all that it has learned about survival and have the next cycle add to it.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Your fish example is good. I'm convinced the mechanisms of evolution work much better downhill than uphill. Loss of function is more likely to occur than the addition of a function. Fish can lose vision and survive if they come with functions that can compensate in a top-down fashion. As you stated earlier, we as humans can survive when our biology fails. A good reason for that is because we come with a social environment of other humans that are willing to help us.
Vestigial organs are often presented in that manner. They represent the loss of a function that used to be there, not the evolution of a function that wasn't there before. The dynamics are different depending on the direction of the change.
Well sure, much easier to go backwards and stop using things then it is to progress forward and evolve new things. Destruction is always easier than creation of complex things. The deep ocean fish did also evolve to survive down there, to survive the immense pressure, the ability to handle the constant cold, how to hunt and find nutrition w/o the use of eyes.
It is a bit funny we agree on many points of evolution, but we differ on the conclusions. Even the alternative method you described in early post seem to me, to be evolution, just a slightly different take on evolution. I personally would not be surprised if at least in part, both methods are in play. Our DNA learns and passes along information, and it has been found that our dna actually does adapt even during just one cycle of life.
It is going to get real interesting as our ability to modify our dna continues to get easier and easier, we already have cheap basic crispr and gene editing tools you can order online for a fairly reasonable low price. Real time dna and evolution editing! (Just the very rudimentary stuff so far.)
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I think many of these questions will only truly by answered once such DNA and Evolution editing takes place. Currently, the theory of evolution only gives us general concepts to work with. Only when we start tampering with genetics, and try to artificially evolve an organism, will we see the pitfalls and deadends of genetic change.
@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy
Well, we already are, just currently at a rudimentary level for the most part. At current rates of advancement in this area, we will have the answer to many of these questions in the next decade or two at a much higher level.
It is already fully possible to pick gender, hair color, eye color, predisposition to disease and undesirable traits, just through the more rudimentary sampling of eggs and sperm. Even beyond that some very basic simple actual genetic and dna editing has taken place in labs.
Already lots of talk of pitfalls and dead ends of genetic change. Real questions of how such technology can be used will be something we grapple with. Just like the pitfalls of social media today like facebook, creates new problems and issues the original creators of the internet or even facebook never foresaw.
Ask your average person 20 years ago if they would be willing to upload most of their lives and certainly their own personal preferences, to the internet to some for profit company to share with everyone they "give access" to but still prone to all kinds of security breaches and they would of thought you were crazy and that such a tech would never be widely adopted.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
That is inaccurate.
@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy
"Its not silly, that's how extinctions happen, an imbalance between the environment and the organism, that kills 100% before reproduction. They don't have to die all at once, but if the deaths outnumber the births, and the misses outnumber the hits, number will dwindle."
And extinction can occur due to many causes. But back to evolution.
If a benign or beneficial mutation shows up in one organism, it may survive and propagate within that community (for example 10 million) and that trait can get passed along, until after a hundred thousand generations the majority of that community have that trait.
Try to think in terms of general trends and multiple generations and many, many members of that community. Things do not happen overnight and with such dramatic effects.
Even then over 99% of all species are extinct.
Right, but the "if a benign or beneficial mutation shows up" is the emphasis of my argument. Whatever happens after is fine; but what I've attempted to do with the OP is show that the window of possible beneficial mutations, is a lot more narrow and dependent on other things.
I am aware that you say you have read a lot on this subject, but mutations are not just random luck. It is not just "the roll of fair dice" in luck.
Using the dice analogy, give a five year old three twenty sided dice, (largest dice most all of us are familiar with) and tell the kid you will give him/her 10 bucks once all 3 dice roll a "20."
You can watch for a bit, but then walk away, it is highly likely, within a few minutes the kid will let you know he rolled three perfect 20's. How did that happen? It is quite unlikely the kid rolled three perfect 20's within a few minutes on pure luck, we are talking 1 in 8000 odds. So what happened? Well the kid cheated while you were not looking. And here is the analogy, to evolution. It too in a sense cheats to make its own "odds" better. DNA allows recording of what works and what does not, it only has to roll a perfect "natural" 20 on each die once, instead of waiting for all 3 to roll perfect 20's in the same roll. Obviously the numbers are different and likely quite a bit larger, but the point is multiple different factors involved in evolution do not decrease the odds, if anything it increases the odds of favorable outcome.
The window of possible beneficial mutations is not narrowed, it is widened. The passing of information from generation to generation is an enormously powerful tool. In a smaller scale, the ability of humans to share and collaborate on information is what rose us humans to be by far the most dominant species the world has ever seen. The internet is an enormously powerful tool because it facilitates high speed and easy transmission of information from person to person.
Without dna and other forms of stored information yes, we would still be stuck I don't know, I hazard a guess of: in the paleozoic period in terms of evolution. Perhaps even less, perhaps life would never have evolved beyond single cell organisms.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy
"Right, but the "if a benign or beneficial mutation shows up" is the emphasis of my argument. Whatever happens after is fine; but what I've attempted to do with the OP is show that the window of possible beneficial mutations, is a lot more narrow and dependent on other things."
On what other things?
Evolution is not about one or two individuals. Any mutations can be carried on, and most mutations are very minor. those mutations spread through the community, and eventually those mutations work and are carried on/reinforced, or they die off. In a community of a billion worms and over a million years, evolution can work it's magic. And I am talking time scales of this magnitude.
Evolution is not narrow, it encompasses millions of years and millions of organisms.
Other things such as the internal and external network in which it fits. If changes are free to occur independently and without consequences, then they can be broad; but if they depend anything else, they begin to narrow.
It should be noted at this point, that selection works at the phenotypic level. So I'm more interested in whole steps that have functional and anatomical effects, not really their underlying genes. And again, time scales don't matter. I want to know if A can survive in state B as it transitions to C: I don't really care how long you think it took.
@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy
All living things are in a constant stage of transition, even simple viruses are constantly morphing. A better way to put it would be: life is in a constant state of "B" a constant state of transition. Sometimes it works, often times it does not. It can work only 1 in a million times, but if there is a million different members of that particular "species" all reproducing and trying new things, that 1 in million actually gets quite likely. The changes are just small enough that the changes do not mean instant life or death often times.
Evolution is incredibly efficient, we humans literally die because of evolution, because "dying" and birth is more efficient than having lives that stretch on to millenniums, evolution and nature could easily have us live for 1000's of years, but it is less efficient, and the more efficient birth and dying living cycle through its huge efficiency advantage would win out on the battle for scarce resources over the species that was immortal.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I'm not sure what your efficiency is in reference to; more or less efficient at what?
The issue I have with changes that are small enough to not have an effect, is that they in turn aren't affected. By not being affected, they are not selected, and don't really have an interesting place in this discussion. There could be a million changes that occur beneath the surface, but if they never rise above the surface nothing ever happens.
There's also the issue that these "silent" changes could lead anywhere. Meaning that a mutation that has been building up off-line, could lead to the death of the animal a million years from now when it goes on-line. I just want to point that out. Dividing the changes into ever smaller and slower bits, doesn't do anything. Its better to keep the conversation at the level of phenotypic changes that can have an effect on the organism. Although I agree that each change doesn't have to cause instant life or death.
@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy
I agree, lots of changes that happen in the background that have little to no effect, with a vast majority of them never utilized. But that is fine, that still works for the process.
I am sure that happens too. On a much more simplified issue, I think it is quite similar to a faulty blood vessel in the brain that leads to nowhere and does little, but one day, it burst and the person drops dead. An evolutionary booby trap that likely served no purpose. Evolution is not perfect, not anywhere near close, but it is efficient, as long as the person makes it long enough to reproduce and care for the young, it really does not care what happens later. Evolution could easily "solve" cancer, but since cancer nearly always strikes much later in life, after the person is no longer able to reproduce, evolution never bothers to "fix" the problem of cancer. Sure cancer shows up in kids sometimes, with devastating effect, but it does not happen at high enough rates for evolution to really evolve a way around that.
We can do that I suppose, but it is important to remember that all these changes are based on millions and billions of tiny changes that make the base of the large changes. We could certainly change the subject to something that has a very fast reproductive cycle. Say the house fly that only lives for a month, and in optimal conditions a female can have around 1000 offspring in that short time period. Meaning the rate of change is much much faster and we can talk on a more "phenotypic" level. Where humans with their slow reproduction cycle changes occur much slower so each change as we observe them are much smaller. We could literally breed major evolutionary changes in the house fly within a few years by setting up the right conditions.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
One subjective creationist opinion in an internet chatroom vs the entire scientific world and over 160+ years of research and evidence.
Come on John, this is silly man. You can't try to make grandiose claims for scientific credentials you don't even have, whilst denying scientific facts, it's risible. What is it you hope to gain beyond a few belly laughs at your expense.
"Thus, a giraffe that needs to reach leaf that's too high, will, through the attempt at reaching it, elongate its neck."
Now that's pretty hilarious.
Just address the same tired old creationist cliche, while chance must undoubtedly play a part in the evolution of species, this doesn't mean the mechanisms that drive it rely purely on blind luck. Natural selection and survival of the fittest kill off those genetic traits that are not as well suited to their environment. A giraffe with a slightly longer neck has access to a food source it's shorter necked brethren didn't have. That's an evolutionary advantage, but obviously it is one solution to an environmental problem that evolution "found".
There's little evolution can do for a dodo when an apex predator finds them on an island where they evolved isolated from any predators.
Why didn't they "learn" to fear the evolved primates that showed up? Evolution explains why.
I think it is kind of sad.
Fair point, perhaps I missed the sad because I am jaded by one too many creationist cliches. It was bound to happen I suppose.
It is astonishingly sad the amount of energy theists will invest trying to square a circle. Almost as sad as denying they are motivated by their religious beliefs, when they categorically refuse to tell you if there are any other accepted scientific facts they deny that don't refute any part of their religious beliefs, and somehow hope we won't see the irony of their reticence. Even though they've brought their creationist spiel into an atheist chatroom, and tried to dress it up as science, as if no creationist ever thought of this before.
I suppose I'll give John a titchy tiny amount of credit for never citing the creationist institute, but he loses this for refusing to answer when he's asked if he's a YEC, and how old he thinks the universe or the earth are, and of course again pretending the questions have no relevance, as if his creationism is not a motive.
If 99% of doctorate level biologists posit that evolution happens in a certain way, I’m inclined to trust them. If a theist in a chat room with a bachelors degree in psychology says they are wrong and posits otherwise, I’m just not inclined to do anything other than scoff.
It's always easier to hand your brain off to the majority I suppose, so I can't blame you. These sort of questions are meant for those that think, not those that trust.
This level of arrogance from a student with no qualifications in this subject, is not nearly as impressive a put down as you suppose John. The scientific method is trusted because you'd have to be delusional not to have noticed its efficacy and its track record. In stark contrast with religion's record, and of course this level of delusion is de rigueur for creationists, who rather ironically, ARE the ones who believe based on trust, and not reason.
Strident unevidenced claims, and denial of scientific facts, to prop up unevidenced religious beliefs isn't "using your brain" John.
John, you wrote, “It's always easier to hand your brain off to the majority”
Oh, ffs! How is making a decision about the trustworthiness of what a group of experts in a certain field say vs what a chat room denizen says handing off my brain? That’s just inane, John!
The keyword is trust, that's what qualifies as handing off your brain. I'm not asking you to trust me over them either. I'm asking you to use your own brain to investigate these questions, and arrive at your own ideas and conclusions.
But again, that's hard to do. So if you're going to base your decisions on trust, by all means, give it to them. I don't want it.
Again, ffs, John. Have you ever had surgery? Gone to a doctor? Have you questioned everything everyone has ever attempted to teach you? Have you ridden in a car with someone else driving? Have you flown on an aircraft? Have you dined in a restaurant?
You trust people daily, John. So don’t think your attempt to hand me your high and mighty bullshit is going to cut it. Your argument is spurious at best, although I would classify as down right ridiculous.
I do trust people daily, again, because it's the easiest thing to do when I don't want to do any work myself.
So like I said, these questions are meant for those interested in thinking as opposed to trusting. So if you're not going to think and contribute, I'll see you in the next thread.
Trust science, or trust risible creation myths from bronze age superstitions.
I'm still going with science, no matter how bitchy you get John.
I hope he never needs brain surgery, I can see him sharpening his chisels now.
" if you're going to base your decisions on trust, by all means, give it to them. I don't want it."
No the keyword is expertise. If I want expertise on brain surgery then yes I will 'trust' the collective opinions of the world's foremost experts on brain surgery, not someone in a chatroom with zero qualifications in brain surgery, who insists he knows better.
Actually, now that I think about it, when it comes to these issues I do think I'm more qualified than a biologist. I've shared classrooms with computer scientists, neuroscientists, anthropologists, etc. I've never come across a biologist taking a course on perception and cognition.
These questions are inherently interdisciplinary. A biologist needs to learn what I've learned before being "qualified" to answer my question.
" I do think I'm more qualified than a biologist. "
Of course you do, you're an arrogant fantasist, though to be clear you mean ALL biologists, and not just all biologists either come to that. TO be equally clear I donlt give a fuck how much some Billy no name student on the internet rates themselves. why would I.
"A biologist needs to learn what I've learned before being "qualified" to answer my question."
Yes I'm sure Professor Dawkins is kicking himself he hasn't consulted a student with no qualifications in biology or evolution before putting pen to paper. I take it back John, you''re not funny, you're fucking hilarious. Your questions are no different to all the other creationist BS sane people point and laugh at.
Pages