@hofisito I don't mean to be facetious, I regret saying that as I may be startling the process. =P Seriously though, you come off very honest- the best thing you can do is email professors about this sort of thing, they're always willing.
Otherwise, you have this "purpose" hang up about the whole thing- so I believe your real objection to evolution lies indirectly with philosophy. The more you study science and philosophy, the more you climb out of the religious rabbit hole unknowingly.
so that's your conclusion, professor. evolution theory has no purpose. that's your complaint. hahahahaha.
are you 5 years old? put up a video when you realize there IS NO universal purpose (a purpose requires a purpose-giver, a god or a master-dwarf that made the world from toothfairies), there is only the purpose we create for ourselves. when you realize that, you've become...... guess...? an adult.
maybe you're good at playing guitar or giving head, who knows. but, you know, when it comes to thinking, you should leave that to others. stick to what you're good at, and you won't end up making a dumbass out of yourself. that's a general rule, ask any old wise fuck, he'll confirm it. a "grad student in science" qualifies you to do proper thinking the same way a piano qualifies a cat to compose an opera. it's walking on keys and making sounds, but it's got no fucking idea what a piano is for.
you may impress your mom or your grandparents with words like "science" and "philosophy" and "A's", but people who's not in the larvae stage of mental development, consider people to be retarded if they complain about the lack of purpose in evolution, as if the theory of evolution needs to be reconsidered or expanded upon for that reason. it's not just stupid, it reveals your entire thought process: walking up and down a blind alley of immaturity and deluded admiration for your own originality.
complexity does go in reverse sometimes. if you cared to look it up, you'd know about it. but usually, it doesn't. because the premises for survival almost always reward ever higher complexity. this kind of approach of yours, to prove a point by cherry-picking facts, is common for 25 year olds who know their curriculum, and think that's the world's knowledge right there. but you do a lot worse than that, you got your standard religious agenda, and think science = adapting facts to immature ideas
a great step forward for you would be to accept the concept of infinity and reality being an eternal fluctuation of energy in an infinite # of universes, the coming and going of complexity, and how+why it never stays permanent, and how there has been an infinite number of you in the past and will be an infinite number of you in the future. "what moves an electron" is the same question as "why eternity", and is answered by "why not". nothing is as absurd as everything. deal with it. lol.
intellectuals know that they know some things (math is one of them, and reality is math), but their true power is to avoid what they don't and can never know. such as your idea of a mysterious, intelligent force behind evolution and the movement of electrons. so they use occams razor, and cut that stupid bullshit out of the picture, because unchecked, stupid bullshit always and without exception overtakes and destroys progress, because it looks for and finds (like you did) its own evidence.
but I know I know... trying to believe in a metaphysical system that involves reason and intellegence makes absolutely NO sense in a world where its physics so... rational???
Interesting video, I always see it as an ecological "arms race" so to speak that drives things to be more complex. Then again I've always been into the history of war and the "evolution" of instruments of war so that view naturally makes a lot more sense to me than anything else.
Gravity doesn't act randomly in that things always fall in the same direction (down). Evolution doesn't act randomly because it's based on natural selection. Again, so what?
@shanedk Gravity doesn't create complex observations like our biochemistry and organ systems. That, I think, requires some purpose and not random mutations.
@DarwinsOtherTheory Evolution selects for certain physical characteristics, but those characteristics (initially created PURELY by "random" mutations) are FAR more complex than we would anticipate, given the nature of the generation process(ie... random mutations). I think it's logical to conclude therefore that these mutations aren't therefore random.
Think the "irreducible complexities" argument of ID people, but without the ID theory, just a modified evolutionary theory.
Wait what? not all mutations are "FAR more complex than we would anticipate" you probably have tons of mutations that you don't even notice, besides even if that were the case, how does that make them non random?
@DarwinsOtherTheory The mutations themselves aren't complex, the biochemistry and organ systems that those mutations CREATE are what's complex.
analogy... would it make sense that blowing up a pile of wood billions of times would result in a house? given that this house is "selected for" when it is created so that it stays.
a good "part" like a "wall" would still be rather complex to be created by blowing up a pile of wood. No matter how small you cut it, the "mutational steps" that we see are necessary in life are way too complex...
If 1 stick just happened to point upwards, it would be a good part. If another one was placed next to it, it would be better. Repeat this a couple of times, and you have a wall
In the same way you can create complex organs. You have to understand that most evolutionairy changes are just pre-existing parts that become stronger or change shape. If you investigate the evolution of wings, you realise that wings are just arms that have changed shape. Every small change can be a little bit better
@DarwinsOtherTheory I also don't accept the common rebuttal that this "house" was created in "baby step" mutations. First a floor, then walls, then roof, or whatever.
This is because certain systems require all the parts at the same time to be functional and thus selected for.
The Sodium Potassium ATPase for example would be a HUGE waste of energy if it weren't somehow tied to another solute transporter that could utilize it. There is no possible "baby step" mutation in this situation.
Evolution DOESN'T create one part, fully formed, at a time. Learn how it works.
Evolution PREDICTS that such co-dependent systems will evolve. See Muller, Hermann J., "Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors," Genetics, 3(5):463-464, 14 January 1918.
you're really citing an article from 1918??? they had NO idea how complex our biochemistry is...
yes, simple co-dependent systems make sense of course, but the hugely complex co-dependent systems who parts have no function on their own (and are actually harmful on their own) that we find in life??? I'd say that doesn't "quite" make sense when random mutations are its source.
just saw the video on abiogenesis... yea... I mean it's good and addresses a lot of problems. But he doesn't adress the creation of things like the na/k pump at all lol... again, he focuses on small gradual changes.
There exists charactericts that could not have been created by "small gradual changes."
I really think science is begining to recognize this because I'm hearing it more and more from the scientific community.
Um, yes, they could! Did you see his Evolution of Irreducible Complexity? What about Evolution of the Flagellum?
Why do you think the Na,K-ATPase system is any different? Did you even LOOK? I just did a Google Scholar search and found a LOT of sources on the evolution of this system, such as "Evolution of Na,K-ATPase βm-subunit into a coregulator of transcription in placental mammals."
seriously though... just the simple example of the Na/K pump makes no sense to me in light of the "natural selection" mechanism proposed.
It's hard enough to mutate a protein into a functional Na/K pump, combine that with simultaneously mutating ANOTHER solute channel to utilize this pump? and then simultaneously mutate the downstream biochemistry that this second solute channel uses to produce its effect... I mean, cmon...
@DarwinsOtherTheory The generation of the first prokaryot itself by "random mutations" is even more complex and difficult than trying to make a house by blowing up wood (a random process).
in a protein 100 amino acids long (rather small on too), there's more possible combinations of proteins (20^100) than the estimated atoms in the universe (quote my organic chemistry book from college).
Let's take specialisation for example. Specialisation is very bad strategy, it might work here and now, but if organism is extremely specialised in current conditions they go easily extinct if conditions change. This is a pattern that is easily seen over and over again in the fossil record.
@DerivedApe it's true... but I'm more talking more about the generation of an EXTRMELY complex biochemistry and organ system. (which wouldn't necessarily be specialized for a particular situation).
I think the Intelligent Design people have a point with their "irreducible complexities" idea, but I don't think direct ID of organism is the logical conclusion.
Very interesting video. You might want to look into the 'red queen' hypothesis if you haven't already, as it has some relevance to what you are talking about in the video. As for the purposeful mutations...I think what speaks against for this idea is the fact that evolution clearly has no foresight. The selection works based on conditions here and now and can not prepare for the future.
@DerivedApe I wouldn't say purposeful mutations are necessarily aimed at helping the species survive in a very specific and particular environment. I would say they're geared in such a way generate increasing complexities and allow for the emmergence of something extremely complex anyways!
but extreme compexity isn't smart thing to do as I said earlier. It makes the lineage more vulnerable for extinction and what kind of guided evolution is that? And besides no designer overcomplicates things, the idea is to keep the structures simple and functional. Good example of rather bad design is glossopharyngeal-vagus nerve complex, especially in giraffe.
@DerivedApe That's sort of my point... it seems like natural selection itself should overall select for things LESS complex, but... we do see greater complexity. Why is that???
I think your counter argument is that you're trying to infer what a purposeful mutation "would" do (which is something I don't think we can do).
What evolution "would" select for is what it HAS selected for. So for whatever reason, complexity is what's favorered, even though like you said, that isn't quite "smart"
Look- a future atheist in his cacoon.
d3vall 2 years ago
lol, yea right...
hofisito 2 years ago
@hofisito I don't mean to be facetious, I regret saying that as I may be startling the process. =P Seriously though, you come off very honest- the best thing you can do is email professors about this sort of thing, they're always willing.
Otherwise, you have this "purpose" hang up about the whole thing- so I believe your real objection to evolution lies indirectly with philosophy. The more you study science and philosophy, the more you climb out of the religious rabbit hole unknowingly.
d3vall 2 years ago
@d3vall I guess... but the more I study science and philosophy, the stronger my faith becomes I would say. I guess it depends on the person.
hofisito 2 years ago
hahahahahahaha.
omg.
so that's your conclusion, professor. evolution theory has no purpose. that's your complaint. hahahahaha.
are you 5 years old? put up a video when you realize there IS NO universal purpose (a purpose requires a purpose-giver, a god or a master-dwarf that made the world from toothfairies), there is only the purpose we create for ourselves. when you realize that, you've become...... guess...? an adult.
lol.
enHanzable 2 years ago
nope, not 5 years old, grad student in science
hofisito 2 years ago
maybe you're good at playing guitar or giving head, who knows. but, you know, when it comes to thinking, you should leave that to others. stick to what you're good at, and you won't end up making a dumbass out of yourself. that's a general rule, ask any old wise fuck, he'll confirm it. a "grad student in science" qualifies you to do proper thinking the same way a piano qualifies a cat to compose an opera. it's walking on keys and making sounds, but it's got no fucking idea what a piano is for.
enHanzable 2 years ago
@enHanzable So getting A's in my science major and philosophy minor and Dean's list currently in grad school... that's doesn't qualify at all???
hofisito 2 years ago
you may impress your mom or your grandparents with words like "science" and "philosophy" and "A's", but people who's not in the larvae stage of mental development, consider people to be retarded if they complain about the lack of purpose in evolution, as if the theory of evolution needs to be reconsidered or expanded upon for that reason. it's not just stupid, it reveals your entire thought process: walking up and down a blind alley of immaturity and deluded admiration for your own originality.
enHanzable 2 years ago
complexity does go in reverse sometimes. if you cared to look it up, you'd know about it. but usually, it doesn't. because the premises for survival almost always reward ever higher complexity. this kind of approach of yours, to prove a point by cherry-picking facts, is common for 25 year olds who know their curriculum, and think that's the world's knowledge right there. but you do a lot worse than that, you got your standard religious agenda, and think science = adapting facts to immature ideas
enHanzable 2 years ago
a great step forward for you would be to accept the concept of infinity and reality being an eternal fluctuation of energy in an infinite # of universes, the coming and going of complexity, and how+why it never stays permanent, and how there has been an infinite number of you in the past and will be an infinite number of you in the future. "what moves an electron" is the same question as "why eternity", and is answered by "why not". nothing is as absurd as everything. deal with it. lol.
enHanzable 2 years ago
@enHanzable The problem with the world is that intellectuals are uncertain while those who are ignorant are damn sure...
hofisito 2 years ago
intellectuals know that they know some things (math is one of them, and reality is math), but their true power is to avoid what they don't and can never know. such as your idea of a mysterious, intelligent force behind evolution and the movement of electrons. so they use occams razor, and cut that stupid bullshit out of the picture, because unchecked, stupid bullshit always and without exception overtakes and destroys progress, because it looks for and finds (like you did) its own evidence.
enHanzable 2 years ago
@enHanzable lol I'm not the one that's trying to claim metaphysical knowledge using science... ahem ahem...
hofisito 2 years ago
but I know I know... trying to believe in a metaphysical system that involves reason and intellegence makes absolutely NO sense in a world where its physics so... rational???
hofisito 2 years ago
Interesting video, I always see it as an ecological "arms race" so to speak that drives things to be more complex. Then again I've always been into the history of war and the "evolution" of instruments of war so that view naturally makes a lot more sense to me than anything else.
hanzo138 2 years ago
@hanzo138 Thanks! it's true... but with evolution, the biggest and most complex "arms" aren't always those that are best fit for survival...
hofisito 2 years ago
Gravitational theory is missing purpose, too. So what?
shanedk 2 years ago 4
@shanedk gravitational theory doesn't act in "purposeful" ways though. Gravity acts "randomly" but evolution doesn't "quite" seem to act "randomly"
hofisito 2 years ago
Gravity doesn't act randomly in that things always fall in the same direction (down). Evolution doesn't act randomly because it's based on natural selection. Again, so what?
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk Gravity doesn't create complex observations like our biochemistry and organ systems. That, I think, requires some purpose and not random mutations.
hofisito 2 years ago
Natural selection is not random.
DarwinsOtherTheory 2 years ago
@DarwinsOtherTheory yea, as a "whole" I know... but the generation of variation in natural selection is random.
hofisito 2 years ago
And? Evolution is still not random, I really don't understand the point you're trying to make.
DarwinsOtherTheory 2 years ago
@DarwinsOtherTheory Evolution selects for certain physical characteristics, but those characteristics (initially created PURELY by "random" mutations) are FAR more complex than we would anticipate, given the nature of the generation process(ie... random mutations). I think it's logical to conclude therefore that these mutations aren't therefore random.
Think the "irreducible complexities" argument of ID people, but without the ID theory, just a modified evolutionary theory.
hofisito 2 years ago
Wait what? not all mutations are "FAR more complex than we would anticipate" you probably have tons of mutations that you don't even notice, besides even if that were the case, how does that make them non random?
DarwinsOtherTheory 2 years ago
@DarwinsOtherTheory The mutations themselves aren't complex, the biochemistry and organ systems that those mutations CREATE are what's complex.
analogy... would it make sense that blowing up a pile of wood billions of times would result in a house? given that this house is "selected for" when it is created so that it stays.
hofisito 2 years ago
How does blowing up a pile of wood mutate? How is it subject to natural selection? You're arguing like a creationist now.
shanedk 2 years ago
If every time you blow it up, the good parts aren't effected, this analogy would be a little better... That's what natural selection does
amateurevolutionist 2 years ago
a good "part" like a "wall" would still be rather complex to be created by blowing up a pile of wood. No matter how small you cut it, the "mutational steps" that we see are necessary in life are way too complex...
hofisito 2 years ago
If 1 stick just happened to point upwards, it would be a good part. If another one was placed next to it, it would be better. Repeat this a couple of times, and you have a wall
In the same way you can create complex organs. You have to understand that most evolutionairy changes are just pre-existing parts that become stronger or change shape. If you investigate the evolution of wings, you realise that wings are just arms that have changed shape. Every small change can be a little bit better
amateurevolutionist 2 years ago
@DarwinsOtherTheory I also don't accept the common rebuttal that this "house" was created in "baby step" mutations. First a floor, then walls, then roof, or whatever.
This is because certain systems require all the parts at the same time to be functional and thus selected for.
The Sodium Potassium ATPase for example would be a HUGE waste of energy if it weren't somehow tied to another solute transporter that could utilize it. There is no possible "baby step" mutation in this situation.
hofisito 2 years ago
Evolution DOESN'T create one part, fully formed, at a time. Learn how it works.
Evolution PREDICTS that such co-dependent systems will evolve. See Muller, Hermann J., "Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors," Genetics, 3(5):463-464, 14 January 1918.
shanedk 2 years ago
you're really citing an article from 1918??? they had NO idea how complex our biochemistry is...
yes, simple co-dependent systems make sense of course, but the hugely complex co-dependent systems who parts have no function on their own (and are actually harmful on their own) that we find in life??? I'd say that doesn't "quite" make sense when random mutations are its source.
hofisito 2 years ago
Hel-lo??? It was a PREDICTION???
And it was RIGHT.
Why don't you watch cdk007's videos on the subject?
shanedk 2 years ago
just saw the video on abiogenesis... yea... I mean it's good and addresses a lot of problems. But he doesn't adress the creation of things like the na/k pump at all lol... again, he focuses on small gradual changes.
There exists charactericts that could not have been created by "small gradual changes."
I really think science is begining to recognize this because I'm hearing it more and more from the scientific community.
hofisito 2 years ago
Um, yes, they could! Did you see his Evolution of Irreducible Complexity? What about Evolution of the Flagellum?
Why do you think the Na,K-ATPase system is any different? Did you even LOOK? I just did a Google Scholar search and found a LOT of sources on the evolution of this system, such as "Evolution of Na,K-ATPase βm-subunit into a coregulator of transcription in placental mammals."
Isn't this just a bit Argument from Incredulity?
shanedk 2 years ago
seriously though... just the simple example of the Na/K pump makes no sense to me in light of the "natural selection" mechanism proposed.
It's hard enough to mutate a protein into a functional Na/K pump, combine that with simultaneously mutating ANOTHER solute channel to utilize this pump? and then simultaneously mutate the downstream biochemistry that this second solute channel uses to produce its effect... I mean, cmon...
hofisito 2 years ago
@DarwinsOtherTheory The generation of the first prokaryot itself by "random mutations" is even more complex and difficult than trying to make a house by blowing up wood (a random process).
in a protein 100 amino acids long (rather small on too), there's more possible combinations of proteins (20^100) than the estimated atoms in the universe (quote my organic chemistry book from college).
hofisito 2 years ago
Why?
Are you familiar with the evolutionary algorithm a lot of people are using to produce designs?
shanedk 2 years ago
What about the bending of light explained by General Relatively and of curved space?
Or of General Relatively at all?
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Let's take specialisation for example. Specialisation is very bad strategy, it might work here and now, but if organism is extremely specialised in current conditions they go easily extinct if conditions change. This is a pattern that is easily seen over and over again in the fossil record.
DerivedApe 2 years ago
@DerivedApe it's true... but I'm more talking more about the generation of an EXTRMELY complex biochemistry and organ system. (which wouldn't necessarily be specialized for a particular situation).
I think the Intelligent Design people have a point with their "irreducible complexities" idea, but I don't think direct ID of organism is the logical conclusion.
hofisito 2 years ago
Very interesting video. You might want to look into the 'red queen' hypothesis if you haven't already, as it has some relevance to what you are talking about in the video. As for the purposeful mutations...I think what speaks against for this idea is the fact that evolution clearly has no foresight. The selection works based on conditions here and now and can not prepare for the future.
DerivedApe 2 years ago
@DerivedApe I wouldn't say purposeful mutations are necessarily aimed at helping the species survive in a very specific and particular environment. I would say they're geared in such a way generate increasing complexities and allow for the emmergence of something extremely complex anyways!
hofisito 2 years ago
but extreme compexity isn't smart thing to do as I said earlier. It makes the lineage more vulnerable for extinction and what kind of guided evolution is that? And besides no designer overcomplicates things, the idea is to keep the structures simple and functional. Good example of rather bad design is glossopharyngeal-vagus nerve complex, especially in giraffe.
DerivedApe 2 years ago
@DerivedApe That's sort of my point... it seems like natural selection itself should overall select for things LESS complex, but... we do see greater complexity. Why is that???
I think your counter argument is that you're trying to infer what a purposeful mutation "would" do (which is something I don't think we can do).
What evolution "would" select for is what it HAS selected for. So for whatever reason, complexity is what's favorered, even though like you said, that isn't quite "smart"
hofisito 2 years ago
@DerivedApe Thanks!!! I'll look into that red queen hypothesis
hofisito 2 years ago