188 réponses à ce sujet

[Carfax]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

If DNA itself was organised and purposeful we wouldn't even evolve because without duplication errors, there is no mechanism by which new genes can be generated. Evolution would not take place. That in itself pretty much rules out any possibility of formal, organsied or directed evolution[b]

And this mechanism you're talking about wouldn't happen to be random mutation now would it?  The same process which is often fatal, harmful and destructive to the organism.  The same process which DNA has inbuilt protections against?

Seriously, I'm curious.  Has any Scientist ever demonstrated how random mutation could generate advantageous benefits on an organism, let alone cause an organism to mutate into something else entirely? 

And by random mutation, I mean the kind induced under laboratory conditions.

[Carfax]

Uszi wrote...

How can evolution have a goal?

Does the strong nuclear force have a goal?  Does gravity?

Is it even useful to talk about the "goal" of gravity?

I hate to answer a question with another question, but indulge me. 

Does Life have a goal or purpose? 

[Daennikus]

Carfax wrote...

Does Life have a goal or purpose? 

I'm coming back to this thread feeling compelled to answer this question, more out of fear that someone reading it might want to off themselves after listening to too much Emo Goth Electro...

The purpose with living beings is to be happy, and that only really happens when they connect with other living beings and flourish. The only problem is, following the rules of chaos, equilibrium has to be restored when one form of life is becoming predominant, that is why you have "evil" things like adversity and death. The reason why the human life force is so chaotic is because it is too large, and its dominance over its world is too strong. 

Once balance is restored (through massive catastrophes and drastic changes in our global way of looking at nature) only then can we all meet our goal.

Modifié par Daennikus, 05 avril 2012 - 01:11 .

[AlexMBrennan]

O rly?

[SalsaDMA]

StabGuy wrote...

There is no ultimate goal in evolution

That we know of.

You need to be religious to believe there is an overaching endpoint goal for evolution.

Not all people are religious. Therefore you cannot state a "fact" based on belief.

[SpiffsGhost]

Carfax wrote...

And this mechanism you're talking about wouldn't happen to be random mutation now would it?  The same process which is often fatal, harmful and destructive to the organism.  The same process which DNA has inbuilt protections against?

Seriously, I'm curious.  Has any Scientist ever demonstrated how random mutation could generate advantageous benefits on an organism, let alone cause an organism to mutate into something else entirely? 

And by random mutation, I mean the kind induced under laboratory conditions.

Most laboratory experiments directly observing evolution of novel and beneficial traits have been performed on bacteria, since they reproduce rapidly, and mutate frequently under various conditions. One of my favorite examples of beneficial mutations is a bacteria that consumes nylon. Nylon, as you know, is a synthetic material and was indigestible by any known bacteria. However, in 1975 (almost 40 years after nylon was invented) a strain was observed to have a mutation that produces specific protein that allows it to break down the synthetic substance.

Another famous lab experiment is a strain of E. coli that developed a mutation to digest citric acid.

So while it is true that most mutations are either neutral or deleterious, there is evidence that advantageous mutations can and do occur.

I think the idea of evolution is certainly malleable in a game like ME3, where we see evidence for it everywhere in the fact that multiple species have evolved on worlds across the galaxy. But I thought it interesting that they proposed the idea of Intelligent Design (see Padok Wiks) and the possibility of a higher purpose of life. I don't personally accept ID, but I think that may be what they were thinking with the StarChild. It is essentially a "God" of the galaxy, and if its idea of final evolution being synthetic/organic hybrid then that's his perogative. While I don't accept the concept in reality, I can accept it in the ME universe. We honestly have no idea what the purpose of anything in the universe is, other than the fact that we are a sum of random events up to this very point in time, a collection of all possible outcomes.

- Spiff

[EHondaMashButton]

Carfax wrote...

RyuujinZERO wrote...

If DNA itself was organised and purposeful we wouldn't even evolve because without duplication errors, there is no mechanism by which new genes can be generated. Evolution would not take place. That in itself pretty much rules out any possibility of formal, organsied or directed evolution[b]

And this mechanism you're talking about wouldn't happen to be random mutation now would it?  The same process which is often fatal, harmful and destructive to the organism.  The same process which DNA has inbuilt protections against?

Seriously, I'm curious.  Has any Scientist ever demonstrated how random mutation could generate advantageous benefits on an organism, let alone cause an organism to mutate into something else entirely? 

And by random mutation, I mean the kind induced under laboratory conditions.

WTF am I reading... Have you taken a highschool biology course?

Go read up on meiosis, mitosis, somatic and germline mutations.  Actually go read up on Sickle Cell trait.  One copy of the mutation gives resistance to Malaria.  2 copies and you've got sickle cell disease.

How the hell do you think bacteria become resistant to man-made antibiotics?

There is so much wrong in those 5 sentences that I'm just going to stop and request you visit the nearest library ASAP.

[78stonewobble]

Daennikus wrote...

Carfax wrote...

Does Life have a goal or purpose? 

I'm coming back to this thread feeling compelled to answer this question, more out of fear that someone reading it might want to off themselves after listening to too much Emo Goth Electro...

The purpose with living beings is to be happy, and that only really happens when they connect with other living beings and flourish. The only problem is, following the rules of chaos, equilibrium has to be restored when one form of life is becoming predominant, that is why you have "evil" things like adversity and death. The reason why the human life force is so chaotic is because it is too large, and its dominance over its world is too strong. 

Once balance is restored (through massive catastrophes and drastic changes in our global way of looking at nature) only then can we all meet our goal.

Actually the purpose of living things (us) is to survive and procreate. From an evolutionary perspective you should clap your hands if someone not biologically related to you bites the dust. Better odd's for you and your genes.

However we could also choose to seek something more than just the basics to live a, as you say, happy life and decide whether there is not room in ourselves to allow others the same.

[chengthao]

i think it makes perfect sense

space magic explains everything

[RyuujinZERO]

I was going to throw my hands up in dismay but no... I shall sit down and explain this for the education of my fellow man.

And this mechanism you're talking about wouldn't happen to be random mutation now would it?  
The same process which is often fatal, harmful and destructive to the organism.  

Harmful changes are just that. Harmful, evolution is a numbers game, if a change means a creature is poorly adapted for survival even slightly in it's given environment it is less likely to have as many offspring of it's own. Conversely if a creature finds itself better adapted to the situation (maybe a bird ends up with a slightly stronger beak allowing it to eat slightly bigger nuts that nothing else on the island is able to eat) be able to support a larger family and that family will carry the advantageous traits. Small numbers differences over long periods stacks up quickly and allow branching into niches in an eco system.

Incidentlly this is the same reason any "end point of evolution" is a completely stupid concept. "Perfection" is relative, a creature perfectly adapted for one world maybe not even be able to walk on another planet. There is no "perfect" middleground that can survive under every condition (NOTHING can survive walking on a neutron star, not even physical matter as we know it)

The same process which DNA has inbuilt protections against?

DNA does not have protections against this. It has a degree of proofreading in RNA transcription (Which is a different activity to DNA replication), and single-base copy error prevent the DNA strand closing up properly, but full base pair alterations can get under the radar and these are what cause serious alterations. There is enough DNA in an average person that every person on the planet has at least a dozen or more errors but due to gene copy redundancy and "trash" code it is seldom a problem.

If the proof-readding process was truly perfect, nobody'd ever die of cancer.

Seriously, I'm curious.  Has any Scientist ever demonstrated how random mutation could generate advantageous benefits on an organism, let alone cause an organism to mutate into something else entirely?  
And by random mutation, I mean the kind induced under laboratory conditions.

Absolutely. bacterial resistance to anti-biotics stems from this rpoperty (Some bacteria in a population have mutations that prevent the drug binding to them. Those bacteria survive and have offspring who also carry the resistance). Fruit flies have been observed under lab control conditions to evolve over many generations to such an extent they can no longer breed with their original stock (true speciation). Observing larger changes in larger animals takes much longer as evolution is something that happens over generations so creatures with slow generations like humans, take longer to adapt. But looking at the human genomic record we can already see adaptations that have taken place in recent history.

For example the "prototypical" human is alctose intolerant. But in Europe, where argiculture has been important for many millenia now, almost the entire "native"  population has adapted to digest animal milk, environmental pressures existed that meant the ability to digest the sugars in milk actually conferred a survival advantage which in turn gave the population that digest it, a survival advanatge over those that could not.

Modifié par RyuujinZERO, 05 avril 2012 - 02:56 .

[Tirigon]

Carfax wrote...
At any rate, the teleological arguement for DNA is strong, because it contains very specific and purposeful instructions required to build an organism in the form of a code.  Using inductive reasoning, one can state that codes like DNA that have an encoding and decoding mechanism always stem from a mind, because there is no purely materialistic process known to man that creates coded information the likes of which is seen in DNA.

However, that is actually not true. DNA is not meant to be a code, the code developed by mere chance.

[Tirigon]

Carfax wrote...

Does Life have a goal or purpose? 

No.

But as sentient beings we are able to choose a goal for ourselves.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Padok Wiks: There is more to evolution than just random mutation.

How arrogant this post-modern human still is to think he understands all things about the universe just by putting the world 'Evolution'.

@The Grey Nayr, I agree with your comments.

[Tirigon]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

Padok Wiks: There is more to evolution than just random mutation.

How arrogant this post-modern human still is to think he understands all things about the universe just by putting the world 'Evolution'.

@The Grey Nayr, I agree with your comments.

Well he is right. There is also the effect of changing environments, which decides whether a mutation is helpful or useless and, therefore, how common it will eventually become in a population, and most species do in fact have means to further controlled mutation.


But I get a feeling that is not quite what he meant, right?:innocent:

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Carfax wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

There is no ultimate goal in evolution.  It is an ongoing process.   

Not sure I would agree with this premise.  All life is fundamentally teleological in nature, therefore it makes sense that evolution itself would also be goal oriented.

As such, it's undoubted that life forms are becoming increasingly complex, and more capable of expression..

The evolution has indeed have a goal. it's 'to reach intelligent and sapient level of life' and it's up to common soul of each race, not to satisfy themselves by just survival. Indeed, it needs it's prerequisites. But how can we be sure that 30 million years ago, there was not a sapient life on earth as hardly anything made by hands can lasts more than 1 million years and firmest of buildings destroy in 20,000 years?

[JBONE27]

Tirigon wrote...

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

Padok Wiks: There is more to evolution than just random mutation.

How arrogant this post-modern human still is to think he understands all things about the universe just by putting the world 'Evolution'.

@The Grey Nayr, I agree with your comments.

Well he is right. There is also the effect of changing environments, which decides whether a mutation is helpful or useless and, therefore, how common it will eventually become in a population, and most species do in fact have means to further controlled mutation.


But I get a feeling that is not quite what he meant, right?:innocent:

Or harmful.  For example.  If a species evolves to have a layer of blubber then it's beneficial in Antactica, but harmful in Nigeria.

[JBONE27]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

Carfax wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

There is no ultimate goal in evolution.  It is an ongoing process.   

Not sure I would agree with this premise.  All life is fundamentally teleological in nature, therefore it makes sense that evolution itself would also be goal oriented.

As such, it's undoubted that life forms are becoming increasingly complex, and more capable of expression..

The evolution has indeed have a goal. it's 'to reach intelligent and sapient level of life' and it's up to common soul of each race, not to satisfy themselves by just survival. Indeed, it needs it's prerequisites. But how can we be sure that 30 million years ago, there was not a sapient life on earth as hardly anything made by hands can lasts more than 1 million years and firmest of buildings destroy in 20,000 years?

You're being biased towards monkies... unless you mean intelliegent and sentiant instead of sapient.  If that is the case then I'd say you are biased towards intelligence and sentiance.  Take the example of nylonase from earlier.  They've evolved much later than humans, but they did not evolve to be intelligent or aware, rather they evolved to be able to eat something that was invented less than 100 years ago.  The 'goal' of evolution is survival, and since the environment constantly changes (when using a geologic time scale), there can be no ultimate goal for evolution.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

JBONE27 wrote...

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

Carfax wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

There is no ultimate goal in evolution.  It is an ongoing process.   

Not sure I would agree with this premise.  All life is fundamentally teleological in nature, therefore it makes sense that evolution itself would also be goal oriented.

As such, it's undoubted that life forms are becoming increasingly complex, and more capable of expression..

The evolution has indeed have a goal. it's 'to reach intelligent and sapient level of life' and it's up to common soul of each race, not to satisfy themselves by just survival. Indeed, it needs it's prerequisites. But how can we be sure that 30 million years ago, there was not a sapient life on earth as hardly anything made by hands can lasts more than 1 million years and firmest of buildings destroy in 20,000 years?

You're being biased towards monkies... unless you mean intelliegent and sentiant instead of sapient.  If that is the case then I'd say you are biased towards intelligence and sentiance.  Take the example of nylonase from earlier.  They've evolved much later than humans, but they did not evolve to be intelligent or aware, rather they evolved to be able to eat something that was invented less than 100 years ago.  The 'goal' of evolution is survival, and since the environment constantly changes (when using a geologic time scale), there can be no ultimate goal for evolution.

Yes I'm biased and I'm proud of it.
Monkeys don't create literature, art, philosophy, government forms and machines. .. U Monkey lover.

[RyuujinZERO]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

The evolution has indeed have a goal. it's 'to reach intelligent and sapient level of life' and it's up to common soul of each race, not to satisfy themselves by just survival.

WTF are you even talking about. You sound like the star-child, have you been reading some kind've hippy crap instead of your school textbooks? xD

[SalsaDMA]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

Carfax wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

There is no ultimate goal in evolution.  It is an ongoing process.   

Not sure I would agree with this premise.  All life is fundamentally teleological in nature, therefore it makes sense that evolution itself would also be goal oriented.

As such, it's undoubted that life forms are becoming increasingly complex, and more capable of expression..

The evolution has indeed have a goal. it's 'to reach intelligent and sapient level of life' and it's up to common soul of each race, not to satisfy themselves by just survival.

aaand this is where it indeed becomes a purely religous debate and nothing else...

No-one is going to convince anyone of anything at this point.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

*Looks at thread* IBTL!

Seriously, this has gone way past ME3 discussion.

[Carfax]

SpiffsGhost wrote...

Most laboratory experiments directly observing evolution of novel and beneficial traits have been performed on bacteria, since they reproduce rapidly, and mutate frequently under various conditions. One of my favorite examples of beneficial mutations is a bacteria that consumes nylon. Nylon, as you know, is a synthetic material and was indigestible by any known bacteria. However, in 1975 (almost 40 years after nylon was invented) a strain was observed to have a mutation that produces specific protein that allows it to break down the synthetic substance.

Another famous lab experiment is a strain of E. coli that developed a mutation to digest citric acid.

So while it is true that most mutations are either neutral or deleterious, there is evidence that advantageous mutations can and do occur.

You didn't read my post properly.  I said RANDOM mutations.  The examples you suggested are all purposeful mutations, in which the organism adapted by itself to a new food source or to overcome a particular specific obstacle.

I was specifically referring to attempts by Scientists to induce spontaneous random mutations, ie with irradiation or something else that imposes excessive mutation rates in organisms.

As far as I know, they have never succeeded in inducing an advantageous mutation in that regard..

[Carfax]

EHondaMashButton wrote...

WTF am I reading... Have you taken a highschool biology course?

Go read up on meiosis, mitosis, somatic and germline mutations.  Actually go read up on Sickle Cell trait.  One copy of the mutation gives resistance to Malaria.  2 copies and you've got sickle cell disease.

How the hell do you think bacteria become resistant to man-made antibiotics?

There is so much wrong in those 5 sentences that I'm just going to stop and request you visit the nearest library ASAP.

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear, but read my reply to Spiff.

[RyuujinZERO]

Carfax wrote...

You didn't read my post properly.  I said RANDOM mutations. .

To put it more accurately you have no idea wtf you're talking about :/

Ok, random mutations that arn't beneficial... Try any of this list:
 http://en.wikipedia....netic_disorders 

All of these are caused by random mutations in most cases they are hereditry, if they have kids, their kids may potentially express the same genetic mutation.

Modifié par RyuujinZERO, 05 avril 2012 - 06:51 .

[Carfax]

Daennikus wrote...

I'm coming back to this thread feeling compelled to answer this question, more out of fear that someone reading it might want to off themselves after listening to too much Emo Goth Electro...

The purpose with living beings is to be happy, and that only really happens when they connect with other living beings and flourish. The only problem is, following the rules of chaos, equilibrium has to be restored when one form of life is becoming predominant, that is why you have "evil" things like adversity and death. The reason why the human life force is so chaotic is because it is too large, and its dominance over its world is too strong. 

Once balance is restored (through massive catastrophes and drastic changes in our global way of looking at nature) only then can we all meet our goal.

If Life has a purpose, then so does the Universe.  The Universe we know for a fact, had a beginning.  If it had a beginning, it must have had a cause.  Life also must have had a cause, because it had a beginning..

Science however, has no materialistic explanation for the what CAUSED the Universe and Life to arise. 

If Time, Space and all material phenomena began with the existence of the Universe, it is logical to infer that the CAUSE of the Universe must exist beyond the current concepts of Time, Space, energy and matter etc...

Most people refer to the Primal Cause as God.