Evolution .. Both Theory and Fact

[Graybeard]

Tina ... I'll leave 'the root of all evil' thread as we were getting off the subject. When I said this is going to be tough I was referring to the fact that you were a worthy opponent, not someone who didn't know the basics. My apologies.

Design Intelligence is my own theory of evolution. Similar to Intelligent Design. In that it recognises that the complexity and behaviour of biological systems cannot be explained away by the idea of series of benificial mutations.

Intelligent Design postulates a 'creator' or 'overseer' of the cosmos. Does Design Intelligence do the same ?

Design Intelligence says that the organism is autonomous in its own evolutionary processes. It will bring obout what is "necessary" to survive in the environment it finds itself in. Take skin colour - the pigmentation of skin will show more pronounced melanin in humans closer to the tropics then it becomes weaker as move away towards the poles such as pale nordic peoples.

Darwinian theory basically explains this as only a product of successful mutation passed on within a closed racial group. But this does not address the underlying fact that our body had the autonomous the to produce melanin that is best suited for surviving in diverse climates. Does that make sense?

Yes. It makes sense.

Random Selection explains this using the following mechanism.

Lets speed up evolution so that we can observe changes. OK?

As part of the speeding up process we will declare that sun cancer is both instant and deadly.

I select 100 people at absolute random. These people constitute the entire genetic pool for our purpose. At the start each persons DNA occupies 1% of the entire genetic pool. Right from the start one person will have the darkest skin. This is obvious, someone has to.

Now we expose them to the sun, some immediately die, the lighter skinned ones, say 10%. The remainder we bring back into the shade and let them pro-create. Now we expose the population to the sun again. Another 10% die, the lighter ones. Eventually this cycle will produce a related population whose DNA occupies the entire genetic pool and each and every one will be a descendant of the one who started out with the darkest skin.

This is random selection. No decision making was required to reach this result. Any random 100 people put into our artificial environment will reach the same outcome.

In the earlier centuries, 6th-7th maybe, a war was fought in Japan and it ended with the victors driving the vanquished into the sea, literally. All were slain. Fisherman on this coast fished for a certain type of crab. After the massacre it was noticed that some few crabs had the markings on their carapace resembling a human face. These were thought to be the souls of the slain and were thrown back. These crabs had always had random markings and those resembling faces had not been noticed in particular.

Up to this point, having a carapace with markings that resembled a human face was not a beneficial selection. You can guess the rest. Now all crabs have that marking and ALL crabs are descended from the original few. All the others were caught and eaten.

In England at the time of the industrial revolution, in Birminham or some such industrial city there was a species of white moth. Like our sample of humans, some moths were darker than others. The industrial revolution produced a great deal of soot and dust from coal. In this darker environment, predators discovered that white moths stood out more than their darker counterparts. All the white moths were eaten. Today there are only black moths, no white at all. Some are not as dark as others of course. But in order for them to once again become white SOMETHING in their environment will have to alter so that white becomes a beneficial selection.

Why did the darkest person in our original example become the antecedent for the entire population. She/He had darker children. Some of these children were darker than their siblings. These siblings had darker children, some were darker than others, etc. This process will always end in black and is very easily simulated on computer.

Adding in all the variables of our environment and churning out the numbers is beyond any current computer's capalbilities. However predictions and 'most likely' scenarios are churned out for Insurance companies etc, all the time.

What mechanistic explanation does Design Intelligence give for these scenarios?

cool bananas tina ... greg

[Tina]

Tina ... I'll leave 'the root of all evil' thread as we were getting off the subject.

Intelligent Design postulates a 'creator' or 'overseer' of the cosmos. Does Design Intelligence do the same ?

What mechanistic explanation does Design Intelligence give for these scenarios?

cool bananas tina ... greg

No - the idea of creator cannot be proved or disproved - no matter how we reason! It is indeterminable so keep out of thesis.

Life appears as an autonomous force: ie self-governing

When I answered your last post in "the root of evil" I thought I was in this evolution forum. It was getting confusing!!!!

I have to go out now but I'll post response to mechanisms later today.

[Tina]

I have not heard of the movie 'expelled'.
cool bananas ... greg

For "Expelled: INTELLIGENCE NOT ALLOWED" go into YouTube and google these videos:

1) Expelled Movie - Teaser Trailer
2) Expelled Movie - Bad Ben Trailer

MY COMMENTS WILL BE EASY TO IDENTIFY.

[Tina]

OK I'VE HAD ONE TOO MANY SAMPLES OF LOCAL WINE PRODUCT SO THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING. (hic)

Lets speed up evolution OK?
sun cancer is both instant and deadly.
I select 100 people at absolute random...the entire genetic pool for our purpose. At the start each persons DNA occupies 1%
Now we expose them to the sun, some die, say 10%. The remainder we bring back into the shade and let them pro-create.
Now we expose the population to the sun again...
---------------------------------------------------------------
####I understand the rational for achieving result where the survivors would have dark skin. But this was in "Dodgy Greg's Skin Radiation Clinic" and not the real world.

In the real world if the global population is exposed to the potentially harmfull UVA/UVB skin cancer can result on the fairer complexions.

The point is research has shown that when circumstances change the organisms environment the organism can over a series of generations can comes up with ways to compensate/counter these changes in environmental pressures.

In terms of your experiment I would say that in real world melanin production would be stimulated in response to increased sun intensity. Our bodies would I believe come up with what was necessary to protect us (if that is possible) from the harmful rays and this MAY mean we'd become dark skinned.

Greg I have to dig out research details but please take my word for it - everything I state is very well considered and evident in various studies but explained as :microevolution" etc.


In the earlier centuries, 6th-7th maybe, a war was fought in Japan...All were slain... You can guess the rest. Now all crabs have that marking and ALL crabs are descended from the original few. All the others were caught and eaten.

HUMANS HAVE BEEN MORE A FACTOR IN DETERMING THE SURVIVAL OF MOST SPECIES THAN ANY THING LIKE "natural selection/survival of the fittest". WE HAVE UN-NATURAL SELECTION - FOR HUMAN AND NON-HUMAN ALIKE. SO LUCKY FOR CRABS IF THEY WERE CONSIDERED APHRODISIACS IT WOULD BE THE OPPOSITE STORY.

In England at the time of the industrial revolution, in Birminham or some such industrial city there was a species of white moth.....

THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN DISCREDITED - I THINK THE DARK MOTHS WERE FOUND AND NAILED ON TO THE TREES.

(BUT DESIGN INTELLIGENCE COULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A
DARK GENE BEING SWITCHED ON IF IT BECAME NECESSARY)

Why did the darkest person in our original example become the antecedent for the entire population.......

STOP IT ALREADY WITH THE SKIN CANCER ZAPPER EXPERIMENTS

What mechanistic explanation does Design Intelligence give for these scenarios?

cool bananas tina ... greg [/QUOTE]

GREG SEE IF YOU CAN GRASP THE ABOVE BEFORE I LAUNCH INTO MECHANICS.

[Graybeard]

OK I'VE HAD ONE TOO MANY SAMPLES OF LOCAL WINE PRODUCT SO THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING. (hic)

When you say local ... Hunter or Barossa or Boutique ?

1.. The point is research has shown that when circumstances change the organisms environment the organism can over a series of generations can comes up with ways to compensate/counter these changes in environmental pressures.

2.. In terms of your experiment I would say that in real world melanin production would be stimulated in response to increased sun intensity. Our bodies would I believe come up with what was necessary to protect us (if that is possible) from the harmful rays and this MAY mean we'd become dark skinned.


3 .. Greg I have to dig out research details but please take my word for it - everything I state is very well considered and evident in various studies but explained as :microevolution" etc.

Tina ... For the purposes of this you have no need to supply proof .. I will take it as given.

I have no disagreement with 1, 2 or 3 above. However, they are not relevant. If I am exposed to the sun my skin does go darker. This is already in my DNA, which I inherited. You are implying that if I am overexposed to the sun my DNA can alter beneficially to stimulate extraordinary melanin production, over and above my DNA's normal inherited ability. Further that my DNA can alter its code to retain this ability.

OK .. Up to this point I am agreeable. Or at the least, willing to suspend disbelief.

Now you imply, if I read you correctly, that my new Super-Melanin DNA can pass the new code across the barrier into my sperm. (If I am a male [which I am] or to an egg [if your female] which you are)

No .. I don't agree with this. This is Lamarckian theory and has been disproved. (A caveat here is that recent tests not related to our discussion have revealed that Lamarckian theory needs to be re-examined) You have to convince me of this point, as Design Intelligence relies on this as a foundation stone. Or at least that is how I read your description of it.

HUMANS HAVE BEEN MORE A FACTOR IN DETERMING THE SURVIVAL OF MOST SPECIES THAN ANY THING LIKE "natural selection/survival of the fittest". WE HAVE UN-NATURAL SELECTION - FOR HUMAN AND NON-HUMAN ALIKE. SO LUCKY FOR CRABS IF THEY WERE CONSIDERED APHRODISIACS IT WOULD BE THE OPPOSITE STORY.

No ... Hominids have only 'walked' (excuse the pun) the earth for 2 million years (some fragments of fossils indicate up to 5-7 million years). Homo-Sapiens for only 100,000 years. How could we have affected evolution more than any other thing?

In any case, I don't believe that because we consciously control our environment to the best of our ability that our actions are somehow 'artificial' while all other species are 'natural'. We are part of the eco-system, subject to it, for all our technology, for all our belief systems. We are not outside it. ALL, repeat ALL, evolutionary changes are driven by mechanical acts. Whether those acts are conscious human decisions or 'rifts' opening in the earth or asteroids striking the earth, or Elephants clearing Acacia Forests to aid grass production, aridity or flooding etc.

THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN DISCREDITED - I THINK THE DARK MOTHS WERE FOUND AND NAILED ON TO THE TREES.

No, what at first appeared to be nail-heads turned out to be part of the dark moth. They had evolved the nail-heads on their wings in order to convince there predators that they could not be separated from the tree.

GREG SEE IF YOU CAN GRASP THE ABOVE BEFORE I LAUNCH INTO MECHANICS.

So that we are on the same wavelength let me know if I should open a Hunter or Barossa ....

cool bananas ... greg

[Tina]

No .. I don't agree with this. This is Lamarckian theory and has been disproved. (A caveat here is that recent tests not related to our discussion have revealed that Lamarckian theory needs to be re-examined) You have to convince me of this point, as Design Intelligence relies on this as a foundation stone. Or at least that is how I read your description of it.


...........evolutionary changes are driven by mechanical acts. Whether those acts are conscious human decisions or 'rifts' opening in the earth or asteroids striking the earth, or Elephants clearing Acacia Forests to aid grass production, aridity or flooding etc.

Hahaha - nail camouflage


Hahaha - nail camouflage!

cool bananas ... greg

I live in the Hunter Valley so if you want to be with me in "spirit' then anything from the Hunter region would be suitable.

OK Re: DNA coding for melanin production v's racial characterists eg indiginous Australian

ALL people have melanin production (coded in human DNA) ready to work when necessary (despite skin colour). But when suddenly Zapped by some lunatic, or increased sudden exposure to sun, melanin does not have time to work - thus sun burn. But gradual exposure without burning leads to bronzed Aussie! (like your good self I'm sure!)

Burning, like most pain, warns us something is wrong => protect skin.

Racial skin colour is heritable through chromosones and maintained when same skin/race couple reproduce. But when two differant skin/race colours reproduce we do actually get what appears as a blended effect. (I am really simplyfying the cause of skin color here). For example my two grandaughters have a dark aboriginal father - their facial features are like his - but their skin is fair - until they go back in sun and then go very dark quickly and easily - which then fades again when less sun stimulation.

(Does get me off the hook re; acquired characteristics not heritable?)

Our actions are far from natural - but that is another issue. The comment I made about "natural selection" meant that the natural world is very much at OUR mercy and we have the power to destroy the world at a whim! We have contributed to extinction and threatened survival of many species. Also we are guilty of not letting nature do what it has to do to survive? Sometimes we should not interfere eg "the crown of thorns starfish eating coral and threating acquatic life - maybe this is necessary - I trust nature - but science knows best and is eliminating the starfish.???

Fittness has nothing to do with their survival ...we call the shots!

[Profpat]

Hi everyone;

If you compare the creation story in Genesis you will find it very similar to what science says in terms of the big bang and evolution.

Day 1 Big bang and light is created.

Day 2 A firmament dome ( particle ) was formed.

Day 3 and Day 4 The bible has the earth being formed on the 3rd day and sun and moon on the 4th day.( It could be that order.)

Day 5 and Day 6 Creation of life in this order:
-------1st. Creatures in the sea.
-------2nd Creatures of land. Starting with birds ( reptiles ) to mammals to man.

Day 7 All is GOOD, time for a rest.

Now, I find it more then remarkable that an ancient text and science would be in agreement as to these stages. Thus I vote for intelligent design using the process of evolutionary steps ( or days ), to go from:


BIG BANG TO MAN

Best to all,

Pat

[Tina]

Hi everyone;

Day 7 All is GOOD, time for a rest.

Now, I find it more then remarkable that an ancient text and science would be in agreement as to these stages. Thus I vote for intelligent design using the process of evolutionary steps ( or days ), to go from:


BIG BANG TO MAN

Best to all,

Pat

Yes Profpat rest - maybe even take the whole week off!

Do you realize that 'information" from Genesis could have been inspired by aliens? Go google "Ancient Aliens".

And for this forum we have to focus on biological evolution and the dominant Darwinian Theory v's design intelligence - not Intelligent Design. We are trying to keep bible out of it because that causes arguments.

[Graybeard]

If you compare the creation story in Genesis you will find it very similar to what science says in terms of the big bang and evolution.

Now, I find it more then remarkable that an ancient text and science would be in agreement as to these stages. Thus I vote for intelligent design using the process of evolutionary steps (or days), to go from: BIG BANG TO MAN

Whhoooh, whooohhh Pat. You have only heard one side of the story. This poem was written by Jaludin Rumu, born 1207.

I died from minerality and became vegetable
And From vegetativeness I died and became animal
I died from animality and became man
Then why fear disappearance through death
Next time I shall die
Bringing forth wings and feathers like angels
After that, soaring higher than angels -
What you cannot imagine
I shall be that

Now, I find it more then remarkable that an ancient text and science would be in agreement as to these stages. Thus I vote for Random Selection using the process of evolutionary steps to go from: BIG BANG TO MAN

Now Pat, to be fair, my story is as good as yours. If you are going to vote without fear or favour then you cannot vote with the better looking candidate just because you want to. LOL

Therefore I must ask you to reconsider, and provide a valid reason with your vote.

cool bananas Abou Pat Adhem ... greg

[Graybeard]

Racial skin colour is heritable through chromosones and maintained when same skin/race couple reproduce. But when two differant skin/race colours reproduce we do actually get what appears as a blended effect. (I am really simplyfying the cause of skin color here).

(Does get me off the hook re; acquired characteristics not heritable?)

No ... This doesn't get you off the hook.

You only pass on what you inherit. If your mother has 'A' DNA and your father has 'B' DNA, then you inherit a mixture of 'AB' DNA. (with random spelling mistakes)

You will only pass on 'AB' DNA. Despite the fact that you may alter the DNA in your own composition by, tobacco, drugs, petrol sniffing, eating, whatever. Even if you discover some new method of living that greatly enhances your life your child will only receive a mixture of your 'AB' DNA and your partners 'CD' DNA.

However, this is not to say that you cannot damage your future childs DNA by rash acts that threaten your own life. Damage is always possible. But traits that you have 'individually' aquired and not inherited cannot be passed on. We only aquire new traits by random mutations in the 'passing on'

There is a subtly here that needs to be thought through carefully. Thats why mammals evolved to care for a single offspring rather than thousands like say a spider. Mammals can aquire new traits (not inherited) by learning from their carers. Mammals decided to 'value add' to their inherited traits. This ability itself was a random mutation, somewhere back around 310 million years ago, in the first mammal like creature called (I think) a cylodont. This is believed to be the first mammal like creature that did this. However other species also did this including some species of dinosaurs

cool bananas ... greg

Tina ... it gives me great pleasure to say TRY AGAIN ....