Cells' Molecular Motor Diversity Confounds Evolution

[Underseer]

You basically have to ignore some pretty basic mathematical concepts about multidimensional objects and their generating functions if you want to postulate that the universe's past is what created the present. You have to throw out the possibility

As long as it's a possibility, why shouldn't it be thrown out? Just like the possibility of Last Tuesdayism? What prevents it from being thrown out?

Nope Keith. It's simple. If you ignore some relevant facts about the nature of reality in an attempt to hold onto your belief system, like you're doing right now, you're in the boat with all the other wackadoodles who also ignore relevant facts about the nature of reality to hold onto their belief systems. You can't base your beliefs on opposition to false beliefs, and expect them to be automatically correct. Especially when you start throwing out valid pieces of information in your attempt to hold onto your beliefs.

What "valid pieces of information" is Keith&Co ignoring?

Ignoring might be the wrong term, maybe something more along the lines of "suppressing", although I can't imagine, for the life of me, why someone would claim that:

A) generating functions do not exist
- that generate objects with a past, present, and future

B) and then spout out the deepity "Math isn't physics", which ignores the fact that one finds mathematical structures, and some of them correspond to reality, and comparing mathematical structures to reality IS one of the best ways to test physics and find the mathematical relationships that reality follows

And what does any of this have to do with reality?

Yes, it's possible to contrive a scenario in which the universe was created 6000 years ago complete with a deep time backstory. It's no more compelling than the scenario under which it was created 6 minutes ago with a deep time backstory that includes all of our (fake, under this scenario) memories. Without positive evidence for either of those, the most logical explanation for why the universe looks like its 14 billion years old is that it is, in fact, 14 billion years old, not 6 kiloyears or 6 minutes with a post-hoc backstory.

The phrase you're looking for is  just-so story, also known as an ad hoc fallacy.

 

[abaddon]

I find all the natural phenomina that adds up to 'create' all the processes we observe in the world to be remarkable, facinating, beautiful, and absolutely wonderful (if not totally brutal at times)... Whereas the creationist "god did it and that's it" knowledge-ender is just so... unholy, unremarkable, and too simlistic to really matter. Complexity is beatiful. Don't be scared of it.

If creator god is "out there" I would imagine "he" would be pretty pissed off at those that intentionally obfuscate all the trouble that really went into creating our universe (or just our world - never got a clear answer on that)...

Yeah, to me that's the craziest thing about creationists. They want a smaller simpler stupider world than what it really is. And that's to save their sense of purpose or meaning in life!

Even the many times of observing it (after Kitzmiller vs Dover even), my jaw still drops at what craziness some will say and do to save their atavistic idiocy in the face of the awesome wonder that science unveils. An intelligent "religionist" would embrace this as the one most truly great wonder that he's ever had the chance to relate with, not build an edifice of lies to guard against it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Don't forget beneficial mutations in humans:

http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

I certainly haven't forgotten those, but if rhutchin gets too many counterexamples he'll just go quiet and pretend no one ever answered his question. Like when he says, in this thread, that no one ever addressed the ICR quote directly.

 

[Kharakov]

B) and then spout out the deepity "Math isn't physics", which ignores the fact that one finds mathematical structures, and some of them correspond to reality, and comparing mathematical structures to reality IS one of the best ways to test physics and find the mathematical relationships that reality follows

Physics uses math, sure. Or, to be more accurate, our understanding of physics uses math.
But being able to craft a math function does not mean that the math describes reality.

Yeah Keith, I don't even know where that strawman came from (ohh, yeah.. it came from you). No shit, the fact that one can create a math function does not mean that math describes reality. The taste of bacon isn't a mathematical summation.

Math follows very specific rules. It's not like mathematicians, or physicists, adjust mathematical equations to MATCH what happens in reality- they find equations that describe what is happening, and if an equation is totally wrong (like e=mc^2), they toss it out with the phlogiston. We find mathematical equations, and they match reality.

Another approach is to craft complex mathematical systems in order to approximate reality (but once again, it's a bit shy of the mark- a word, or system of words, is never going to encompass all of reality). But that isn't the point at all.

One point is that a generating function could generate an object, with a past and a future dependent on the function, at a t=0, in such a way that the past is created by the function as well. Since a mathematical equation can do this, it's an indication that reality itself can do the same thing (because if reality can cause a mathematical equation to do this, there is no way in hell that you can prove that reality cannot do this- it already did when the equation did what it did).

So any claims about the origination of the universe being at the big bang are tossed out the window, by a very simple fact: mathematical equations can generate objects with an intact past and future, and if they can do it, there is no reason whatsoever to think that someone or something else in reality cannot, or did not, do the very same thing. The big bang singularity, as a matter of fact, resembles the singularities of certain 4+ dimensional mathematical objects at the far ends of their "life" times.

The claim that time goes back to the BB singularity could be complete bullshit. Time could emerge backwards and forwards from another mathematical singularity, without having to originate at the BB singularity.

 

[Kharakov]

Yes, it's possible to contrive a scenario in which the universe was created 6000 years ago complete with a deep time backstory. It's no more compelling than the scenario under which it was created 6 minutes ago with a deep time backstory that includes all of our (fake, under this scenario) memories. Without positive evidence for either of those, the most logical explanation for why the universe looks like its 14 billion years old is that it is, in fact, 14 billion years old, not 6 kiloyears or 6 minutes with a post-hoc backstory.

That's a simplistic way of looking at things (akin to flat earth theories).

There are relatively simplistic generating functions that can generate an object with a past and future.

This object starts at t=0 (intact) and evolves towards t<-1. Could evolve it forwards in time as well- it has self similarity in both directions, although one can alter variables in various ways to make it evolve differently.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHqcuoRzmQE[/YOUTUBE]

Now, we can alter the object in many ways, which alter the way the object evolves into the future... and the past. There are various mathematical descriptions that apply to the object (rotation rates of specific nubs in relation to one another), that break down at the singularity (the point t~ + or - 1.08), the point at which the object is no longer created by the generating function.

Pretty simple math, and you think that whatever caused the universe is more limited than the very simplistic mathematical equation that generated this object? The very nature of this mathematical object is such that there are very exact mathematical relationships defining the way that certain nubs rotate around one another (and how the various parts interact).

Once can find relationships about how the object "grew" from t<-1 to t=0, but these relationships are not what caused the object to behave as it did. It was the generating function, which could simply generate the whole object at t=0. A generating function that is not determined by the mathematical (physical for this object) rules that it creates.

 

[Jokodo]

Yes, it's possible to contrive a scenario in which the universe was created 6000 years ago complete with a deep time backstory. It's no more compelling than the scenario under which it was created 6 minutes ago with a deep time backstory that includes all of our (fake, under this scenario) memories. Without positive evidence for either of those, the most logical explanation for why the universe looks like its 14 billion years old is that it is, in fact, 14 billion years old, not 6 kiloyears or 6 minutes with a post-hoc backstory.

That's a simplistic way of looking at things (akin to flat earth theories).

There are relatively simplistic generating functions that can generate an object with a past and future.

This object starts at t=0 (intact) and evolves towards t<-1. Could evolve it forwards in time as well- it has self similarity in both directions, although one can alter variables in various ways to make it evolve differently.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHqcuoRzmQE[/YOUTUBE]

Now, we can alter the object in many ways, which alter the way the object evolves into the future... and the past. There are various mathematical descriptions that apply to the object (rotation rates of specific nubs in relation to one another), that break down at the singularity (the point t~ + or - 1.08), the point at which the object is no longer created by the generating function.

Pretty simple math, and you think that whatever caused the universe is more limited than the very simplistic mathematical equation that generated this object? The very nature of this mathematical object is such that there are very exact mathematical relationships defining the way that certain nubs rotate around one another (and how the various parts interact).

Once can find relationships about how the object "grew" from t<-1 to t=0, but these relationships are not what caused the object to behave as it did. It was the generating function, which could simply generate the whole object at t=0. A generating function that is not determined by the mathematical (physical for this object) rules that it creates.

Contrived.

 

[Kharakov]

So no contradictions specific to the Bible but only to your understanding of how I should behave relative to what you think the Bible says. OK.

Ehh, that's just a pet peeve of mine- someone bringing up Jewish fables and claiming they are true by citing a book that says that creating controversy over fables isn't pragmatic (although, admittedly, it does create a lot of conversation, and idle chatter, just like 1:Timothy says, which I can't complain about).

So... anyway, carry on. I still think you're in such a blissful, ignorant state that you can't comprehend the truth of anything that contradicts what you believe the bible says. Although maybe you comprehend it, and just deny it to keep the idle chatter going?

 

[Kharakov]

Contrived.

Apparently you have no actual argument against generating functions that can generate a connected past, present, and future from any point in time.

It's a pretty big deal that a simple mathematical equation can generate a whole object, with a past, present and future that are all connected. Especially since there are obviously specific relationships between each point in time for the object, relationships that can be described mathematically, even if the object does not evolve according to the relationships, but rather is a single object that has a generating function.

Not that I think the universe is that simple... I just think it's preposterous to propose that it began at the BB, instead of at some other point in the timeline, based on archaic understanding of the nature of time, and how things interact. This object can be seen as following specific rules of evolution through time, yet it is a single object, and it's a very simple one at that.

There is no justification to claims that the universe was not created intact, in a specific state, at some time other than the BB.

 

[Kharakov]

The phrase you're looking for is  just-so story, also known as an ad hoc fallacy.

Yeah. You have to toss out some very easy to grasp possibilities about the timeline of the universe if you learn a bit of math.

Definitely going to need to start coming up with some type of ad hoc justification for holding onto the timeline, when an object can be generated with a connected, past, present and future, that apparently evolves according to specific rules.

Or you can just sweep the implication under the rug... because it invalidates positions you hold dear.

 

[Narapoia]

The phrase you're looking for is  just-so story, also known as an ad hoc fallacy.

Yeah. You have to toss out some very easy to grasp possibilities about the timeline of the universe if you learn a bit of math.

Definitely going to need to start coming up with some type of ad hoc justification for holding onto the timeline, when an object can be generated with a connected, past, present and future, that apparently evolves according to specific rules.

Or you can just sweep the implication under the rug... because it invalidates positions you hold dear.

If I understand your position correctly (if not please advise) - the universe could have been created yesterday as the result of a meta function that generates a connected past present and future, including memories in living entities, that evolves according to specific rules - I have a couple questions:

1. What difference would there be between such a scenario and one where the universe in its current form began with the BB event and we have followed a linear path down the resulting timeline for the past 14+ billion years?
2. What potential evidence would allow us to differentiate between the two scenarios? Do you have any evidence?
3. What bearing does the possibility of a functionally derived universe have on our quest to understand said universe? Should we divert all research into finding this function? Would we ever be capable of understanding the function?
4. How would the function account for the actions of independent and conscious agents working within it - to me the implication is that function would govern the decisions of all sentient agents within the universe it describes? Would this not have serious implications for the notion of free-will?

 

[Jokodo]

Contrived.

Apparently you have no actual argument against generating functions that can generate a connected past, present, and future from any point in time.

It's a pretty big deal that a simple mathematical equation can generate a whole object, with a past, present and future that are all connected. Especially since there are obviously specific relationships between each point in time for the object, relationships that can be described mathematically, even if the object does not evolve according to the relationships, but rather is a single object that has a generating function.

Not that I think the universe is that simple... I just think it's preposterous to propose that it began at the BB, instead of at some other point in the timeline, based on archaic understanding of the nature of time, and how things interact. This object can be seen as following specific rules of evolution through time, yet it is a single object, and it's a very simple one at that.

There is no justification to claims that the universe was not created intact, in a specific state, at some time other than the BB.

You got this on its head. It is the proposition that the universe was "created intact" that would need positive evidence to become anything other than a very far-fetched speculation. That it is as old as it looks is the default position.

 

[Kharakov]

Contrived.

Apparently you have no actual argument against generating functions that can generate a connected past, present, and future from any point in time.

It's a pretty big deal that a simple mathematical equation can generate a whole object, with a past, present and future that are all connected. Especially since there are obviously specific relationships between each point in time for the object, relationships that can be described mathematically, even if the object does not evolve according to the relationships, but rather is a single object that has a generating function.

Not that I think the universe is that simple... I just think it's preposterous to propose that it began at the BB, instead of at some other point in the timeline, based on archaic understanding of the nature of time, and how things interact. This object can be seen as following specific rules of evolution through time, yet it is a single object, and it's a very simple one at that.

There is no justification to claims that the universe was not created intact, in a specific state, at some time other than the BB.

You got this on its head. It is the proposition that the universe was "created intact" that would need positive evidence to become anything other than a very far-fetched speculation. That it is as old as it looks is the default position.

Yup. Earth is flat was the "default" position. Earth is the center of the universe was the "default" position. The milky way is the extent of the whole universe was the "default" position. The BB was the beginning of the universal timeline was the only position thought to be possible, according to natural law.

If a generating function can create objects with a timeline and specific behaviors along that timeline (we could call these behaviors the natural laws that the object "evolves" by), there is no reason to think that the multifaceted energy that created the whole damn universe couldn't do something similar- create a past and future from a single point in time and expand from there.

Don't take this to mean that I dismiss natural law, evolution, or whatnot. I'm just saying that I'm skeptical about unproven claims in regards to natural law.

Especially since I know of generating equations for multidimensional objects, that have well defined behaviors over time that can be described by mathematics OTHER than the generating equations. In other words, if someone was bound by the generating equation, they would witness events happening in accordance with natural laws, yet these natural laws do NOT generate the behaviors- the generating function does.

The very existence of this type of mathematical function puts naturalism (the view that natural laws describe causal connections between events) on a slightly less solid foundation.

 

[Kharakov]

If I understand your position correctly (if not please advise) - the universe could have been created yesterday

That's not my position- the position is that the universe could have been created with an intact past, present, and future by specific generating functions. This means yesterday, today, and tomorrow were created by the same function, and the "natural causality" between events is a consequence of the generating functions, rather than "natural laws" which are caused by the generating functions.

as the result of a meta function that generates a connected past present and future, including memories in living entities, that evolves according to specific rules

It appears to evolve according to specific rules, between 2 points in time, yet the behavior that the rules describe is caused by the generating function (a function that creates the object in a specific form for each point in time).

Show

Going to ramble a bit. Need to work on a visual presentation of such an object, with perhaps a voice over or something.

Say I write a function that creates an object. At t=.00001, certain parts of the object are in certain locations. At t=.00002, the parts have changed location and altered a little bit. The change in location and alteration of the parts of the object can be described mathematically (they follow specific patterns). However, the changes are not due to the object being defined by the mathematical relationships that describe the changes- they are due to the objects location in "time". The object is generated as a whole at each point in time, so the laws that appear to govern the object over time (how the object changes over time), are not the causal factors.

1. What difference would there be between such a scenario and one where the universe in its current form began with the BB event and we have followed a linear path down the resulting timeline for the past 14+ billion years?

The BB event would be simply one consequence of the generating function, instead of the start of the generating function. I suppose you'd instead have a "BB" that occurred in time, as well as space.

2. What potential evidence would allow us to differentiate between the two scenarios? Do you have any evidence?

We could analyze generating functions that cause "natural law" like relationships and see how these relationships break down at the BB ends of the objects generated. If it seems that the objects "natural law" relationships break down like our natural law relationships break down at the BB end of things, look for things in reality which indicate a generating function is the cause of 2 connected events instead of natural law being the cause.

Things that I've seen in generating functions are behaviors that are similar over the whole object, yet as one looks at different scales or locations of the object, the generating functions cause behaviors that are location and/or scale specific.

3. What bearing does the possibility of a functionally derived universe have on our quest to understand said universe? Should we divert all research into finding this function? Would we ever be capable of understanding the function?

If the universe was generated through a specific function and we instead pursue knowledge of the "subordinate natural laws" that the function creates, we aren't going to find the actual function, or have a complete understanding of "said universe". However, this isn't to say that learning about the subordinate "natural laws" is not pragmatic, or fun.

And no- apparently understanding various relationships in nature is a good way of benefiting from those relationships, so we should not divert all research into finding this function (if it even exists). And maybe we would ultimately understand the function- it's not like any of us have learned to understand other concepts based on our experiences....

4. How would the function account for the actions of independent and conscious agents working within it - to me the implication is that function would govern the decisions of all sentient agents within the universe it describes?

You mean like neurons and circumstance govern the decisions we make? I'm not sure how this changes....

Would this not have serious implications for the notion of free-will?

..... anything. We are either bound by natural laws, or a generating function that also creates natural laws.

Show

OR maybe the generating function has awareness, and responds to what it creates, but this is just crazy talk. And maybe, just maybe, order is maintained for what it created by following specific rules, instead of things being bound by these specific rules.

 

[Narapoia]

That's not my position- the position is that the universe could have been created with an intact past, present, and future by specific generating functions. This means yesterday, today, and tomorrow were created by the same function, and the "natural causality" between events is a consequence of the generating functions, rather than "natural laws" which are caused by the generating functions.

Show

Going to ramble a bit. Need to work on a visual presentation of such an object, with perhaps a voice over or something.

Say I write a function that creates an object. At t=.00001, certain parts of the object are in certain locations. At t=.00002, the parts have changed location and altered a little bit. The change in location and alteration of the parts of the object can be described mathematically (they follow specific patterns). However, the changes are not due to the object being defined by the mathematical relationships that describe the changes- they are due to the objects location in "time". The object is generated as a whole at each point in time, so the laws that appear to govern the object over time (how the object changes over time), are not the causal factors.

Ah, thank you for the clarification. So the appearance of evolution within the system happens according to 'natural laws', which can be described mathematically. These natural laws are a product of the higher function and while they can be used to describe patterns (+causality) from within the system (where there is an illusion of time) the positions of objects at all points in time are governed by the higher function.

The BB event would be simply one consequence of the generating function, instead of the start of the generating function. I suppose you'd instead have a "BB" that occurred in time, as well as space.

That part I think understand, the function describes the whole timeline including the BB. There is only the appearance of a linear flow of time form within the system described by the function.

We could analyze generating functions that cause "natural law" like relationships and see how these relationships break down at the BB ends of the objects generated. If it seems that the objects "natural law" relationships break down like our natural law relationships break down at the BB end of things, look for things in reality which indicate a generating function is the cause of 2 connected events instead of natural law being the cause.
Things that I've seen in generating functions are behaviors that are similar over the whole object, yet as one looks at different scales or locations of the object, the generating functions cause behaviors that are location and/or scale specific.

Okay - so it could feasibly be tested. Though I imagine there would be competing theories for why the natural law relationships break down or scale specific behaviours.

If the universe was generated through a specific function and we instead pursue knowledge of the "subordinate natural laws" that the function creates, we aren't going to find the actual function, or have a complete understanding of "said universe". However, this isn't to say that learning about the subordinate "natural laws" is not pragmatic, or fun.

And no- apparently understanding various relationships in nature is a good way of benefiting from those relationships, so we should not divert all research into finding this function (if it even exists). And maybe we would ultimately understand the function- it's not like any of us have learned to understand other concepts based on our experiences....

Fair enough.

You mean like neurons and circumstance govern the decisions we make? I'm not sure how this changes....
..... anything. We are either bound by natural laws, or a generating function that also creates natural laws.

Show

OR maybe the generating function has awareness, and responds to what it creates, but this is just crazy talk. And maybe, just maybe, order is maintained for what it created by following specific rules, instead of things being bound by these specific rules.

Okay - so I think this is still the biggest problem that I have with the idea of the function derived universe. The function generates the entire timeline - from our perspective the past, present and future. It describes the position of each of the objects within the systems at all points in time. I am actually okay with this for inanimate objects. Questions arise if I decide to go to Japan today on a whim, as it is not really me making that decision, it is not really a decision at all because everything I do (or think I do) at any point in the already determined timeline is the result of the generating function. Life is writ large as a product of the function, it reduces us automata. I admit this is more of an emotional opposition to your idea - it might be possible.

 

[rhutchin]

Mutations are not only degradational.

Any examples?

Resistance to antibiotics comes to mind. The current model, of course, is that some develop positive mutations after the exposure to a particular antibiotic strain. The ones with a slight resistance survive slight exposure, and repeated exposure improves the trait. That would be positive.

That a mutation produces a beneficial effect says nothing about the genetic changes wrought by the mutation being good or bad. Mutation can degrade the genome and still produce a beneficial effect. So, has antibiotic resistance been shown to result from a mutation as opposed to being an inherited trait (like eye color). So, have you ever looked at, or cared about, the genetic analysis of antibiotic resistance and the real impact on the genome?

If mutations only take away traits, then the only way to explain a population becoming resistant would be for every life form to already have a genetic resistance to every antibiotic that could ever be developed. AND they'd have to have a genetic block in place to prevent that resistance from functioning. So that when they're finally exposed to the antibiotic, some of the population that doesn't die from the exposure has to mutate in the exact way to lose the trait that suppresses the resistance. And also has to not mutate in such a way as to lose that resistance before it's exposed to the strain.

If an organism dies, it obviously was not resistant. If the organism lives, it was resistant. It's to late to mutate once the antibiotic is present; either the organism was born resistant or it dies.

Imagine if some random mutation had deleted an STD's resistance to penicillen in, say, 1500BC. By your claims, it would never, ever redevelop that resistance. There would be a strain that could always be defeated by one antibiotic and no researchers could ever trick it into developing resistance. Has anyone found such an example?

Technically, a mutation should be reversible. There is a DNA repair system that does this but it is not 100% successful. If the mutation results in a deletion, that would seem more serious than an addition particularly if the repair system doesn't catch it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That a mutation produces a beneficial effect says nothing about the genetic changes wrought by the mutation being good or bad. Mutation can degrade the genome and still produce a beneficial effect.

Jesus fucking Christ on a pogo stick in a wind storm, that's incredible denial.
You can define mutations as negative even if they provide a beneficial effect?

So, has antibiotic resistance been shown to result from a mutation as opposed to being an inherited trait (like eye color).

Wait, i think you're a little confused.
A mutation that provides a benefit and appears in later generations is an inherited trait.
If it's a DNA based trait that didn't appear in aprevious generation, but appears in a current one, then it's appearance is best explained as a mutation.

So, have you ever looked at, or cared about, the genetic analysis of antibiotic resistance and the real impact on the genome?

Feel free to provide a reference to scientific investigation that shows that the appearance of a resistance to antibiotics that would kill a population is an overall negative to that population.

If an organism dies, it obviously was not resistant. If the organism lives, it was resistant. It's to late to mutate once the antibiotic is present; either the organism was born resistant or it dies.

Not exactly coherent. The organism doesn't mutate in response to the antibiotic. It's a mutation that may appear in several members of the population before the drug is applied.
Those that face the full dose will die, but those on the periphery, or those exposed to misapplied lesser doses may squeak by.
Then we get the selection part.

Technically, a mutation should be reversible. There is a DNA repair system that does this but it is not 100% successful.

Well, that's odd, isn't it?
Evolutionary theory would certainly suggest that a system that would prevent evolution would not evolve. Seriously, if the repair was 100%, then it prevents changes. Evolution would work towards some repairs, but not perfect ones.

If the mutation results in a deletion, that would seem more serious than an addition particularly if the repair system doesn't catch it.

Well, yes. IF the mutation results in a deletion... But that's not the case for all mutations.

 

[Kharakov]

Ah, thank you for the clarification. So the appearance of evolution within the system happens according to 'natural laws', which can be described mathematically. These natural laws are a product of the higher function and while they can be used to describe patterns (+causality) from within the system (where there is an illusion of time) the positions of objects at all points in time are governed by the higher function.

Exactly! You don't know how much I wanted to convey that one idea.

You mean like neurons and circumstance govern the decisions we make? I'm not sure how this changes....
..... anything. We are either bound by natural laws, or a generating function that also creates natural laws.

Show

OR maybe the generating function has awareness, and responds to what it creates, but this is just crazy talk. And maybe, just maybe, order is maintained for what it created by following specific rules, instead of things being bound by these specific rules.

Okay - so I think this is still the biggest problem that I have with the idea of the function derived universe. The function generates the entire timeline - from our perspective the past, present and future. It describes the position of each of the objects within the systems at all points in time. I am actually okay with this for inanimate objects. Questions arise if I decide to go to Japan today on a whim, as it is not really me making that decision, it is not really a decision at all because everything I do (or think I do) at any point in the already determined timeline is the result of the generating function. Life is writ large as a product of the function, it reduces us automata. I admit this is more of an emotional opposition to your idea - it might be possible.

I can see possibilities of branches of the function being selected by the beings within it (at the same time they are drawn towards certain branches by what they experience).

I see no reason why the generating function would not respond to our desires, allowing us to select paths within the generating function that we prefer- we already pick ice cream flavors. I've picked specific variables within some of the generating functions I've played with because I liked the way they evolved around those variables.

With multi-variable generating functions, one can select specific parts of the multidimensional object. One doesn't have simply 1 time dimension- but many "time" variables that are smoothly connected by the function, so even as the generating function moves forwards in time (with its own clock), different variables are smoothly selected for by the beings within the function.

Show

As I was walking in the dark, there were awesome thunder storms on 3 horizons. Only a slight sprinkling of rain were I was, but lightning in 3 directions. Awesome, and beautiful.

 

[rhutchin]

You can define mutations as negative even if they provide a beneficial effect?

Sure. The example is resistance to malaria conveyed by a mutation which also makes the person susceptible to sickle cell anemia. A mutation changes the genome is some manner - the issue is whether that mutation has enhanced or degraded the entire genome regardless what beneficial effects appear.

A mutation that provides a benefit and appears in later generations is an inherited trait. If it's a DNA based trait that didn't appear in a previous generation, but appears in a current one, then it's appearance is best explained as a mutation.

Let's assume that to be true (even though some traits can dominate while others remain hidden across generations). The issue here is whether a mutation produces a beneficial effect by enhancing the genome in some manner or by degrading the genome making it less capable than before. Research on this is just starting to be done. In the case of antibiotic resistance, we don't know whether the mutation conferred antibiotic resistance or removed antibiotic resistance. This is one of the concerns of doctors - that the use of antibiotics is removing the weak members of the population which kept the stronger members in check.

Feel free to provide a reference to scientific investigation that shows that the appearance of a resistance to antibiotics that would kill a population is an overall negative to that population.

As you might know, no one has looked at this yet. NIH says that antibiotic resistant organisms predate humans. So who knows?

 

[bilby]

Sure. The example is resistance to malaria conveyed by a mutation which also makes the person susceptible to sickle cell anemia. A mutation changes the genome is some manner - the issue is whether that mutation has enhanced or degraded the entire genome regardless what beneficial effects appear.

A mutation that provides a benefit and appears in later generations is an inherited trait. If it's a DNA based trait that didn't appear in a previous generation, but appears in a current one, then it's appearance is best explained as a mutation.

Let's assume that to be true (even though some traits can dominate while others remain hidden across generations). The issue here is whether a mutation produces a beneficial effect by enhancing the genome in some manner or by degrading the genome making it less capable than before. Research on this is just starting to be done. In the case of antibiotic resistance, we don't know whether the mutation conferred antibiotic resistance or removed antibiotic resistance. This is one of the concerns of doctors - that the use of antibiotics is removing the weak members of the population which kept the stronger members in check.

Feel free to provide a reference to scientific investigation that shows that the appearance of a resistance to antibiotics that would kill a population is an overall negative to that population.

As you might know, no one has looked at this yet. NIH says that antibiotic resistant organisms predate humans. So who knows?

I happen to know that this has indeed been looked at in some detail since at least the 1980s. I am pretty sure it wasn't a new area of enquiry even then. The reason you can't find a paper supporting your position is not that no-one has looked at this; it is that all those who have looked have found nothing that supports your position.

The NIH are absolutely correct; both antibiotics, and bacteria that are resistant to them, pre-date humans by hundreds, possibly thousands, of millions of years. Surely you are not so ill-informed as to think that antibiotics are man made?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sure. The example is resistance to malaria conveyed by a mutation which also makes the person susceptible to sickle cell anemia. A mutation changes the genome is some manner - the issue is whether that mutation has enhanced or degraded the entire genome regardless what beneficial effects appear.

So which is it? Is a resistance to malaria, which developed in an area that malaria occured in, plus sickle cell, a positive or a negative?
Right off the top of my head, i have to say that if Sickle Cell was more deadly than malaria, evolutionary processes would not likely have been retained by the gene pool. So overall, it's probably a benefit.

But still, the trait is something added to the gene pool from a mutation. Unless all human DNA has the trait of malarial resistance AND sickle cell, but it's suppressed everywhere except certain gene pools? That was your position, that mutations are only deleterious. Now you're sliding a little bit, from 'mutations take away' to 'mutations always do damage?'

A mutation that provides a benefit and appears in later generations is an inherited trait. If it's a DNA based trait that didn't appear in a previous generation, but appears in a current one, then it's appearance is best explained as a mutation.

Let's assume that to be true (even though some traits can dominate while others remain hidden across generations).

Drop the disclaimer. We're not talking about domination, we're talking about traits that flat out did not appear until after exposure to the antibiotic.

The issue here is whether a mutation produces a beneficial effect by enhancing the genome in some manner or by degrading the genome making it less capable than before.

The issue HAD been whether or not mutations can add to the genome. Are you moving the goalpost? I think so... Unless 'deleterious,' in your personal, agenda enhanced dictionary, has a unique meaning that doesn't share common ancestry with 'delete?'

Research on this is just starting to be done. In the case of antibiotic resistance, we don't know whether the mutation conferred antibiotic resistance or removed antibiotic resistance.

Ihcorrect. Figuring that all bacteria hold a resistance to an antiobiotic treatment that hasn't yet been developed, then most mutate to lose it, does not support the development of superbugs with massive resistance to a wide spectrum of antibiotics that have been applied.
Research is not just starting with this and your Bizzaro-universe-model is not worthwhile.

This is one of the concerns of doctors - that the use of antibiotics is removing the weak members of the population which kept the stronger members in check.

No, it's not.
The concern is that we're effectively breeding diseases to survive all of our attempts to destroy them.

Feel free to provide a reference to scientific investigation that shows that the appearance of a resistance to antibiotics that would kill a population is an overall negative to that population.

As you might know, no one has looked at this yet.

Untrue.

NIH says that antibiotic resistant organisms predate humans. So who knows?

Lots of people know.
You're just unwilling to face the facts because they don't fit well into your world picture.
Not because there's no science for it, or because you can pinpoint errors in the science, but because the conclusion is that mutations can add traits to the gene pool's DNA. And that would mean that your god isn't necessary to explain...well, much of anything, really.