Design vs Accident

[Thales]

It is universally excepted that genetic mutations drive evolution forward with natural selection cropping off the weakest links but what actually causes the mutations in the first place?

 

If its random 'copying' errors then how did we manage to achieve the extent of biodiversity we currrently have. And how come we fill ecological niches in such a fitting way? The majority of evolution is due to a changing enviroment but an organism cannot choose the genetic mutations that occur so how did we come to be so perfect?

 

If its design then what process accounts for the random factors from mate selection to the success of gametes and zygotes?

 

Not being a biologist I find this question very vexing. Anyone got any ideas?

__________________

[Skye]

It is universally excepted that genetic mutations drive evolution forward with natural selection cropping off the weakest links but what actually causes the mutations in the first place?

Nothing is universally accepted.

If its random 'copying' errors then how did we manage to achieve the extent of biodiversity we currrently have.

It's obviously a pretty shabby copying system.

And how come we fill ecological niches in such a fitting way?

It shouldn't surprise you that the niches that living things occupy precisely match the...niches that they occupy.

The majority of evolution is due to a changing enviroment but an organism cannot choose the genetic mutations that occur so how did we come to be so perfect?

Selection at work.

If its design then what process accounts for the random factors from mate selection to the success of gametes and zygotes?

Randomness?

Not being a biologist I find this question very vexing. Anyone got any ideas?

Read some biology books.

[Thales]

I'm reading one at the moment thats what inspired the idea. My point is how come this randomness leads to such effective design? The whole notion af randomness doesn't sit well with me. There are many examples of genetic mutations that seemingly preempt the enviornment they eventually settle into. Does the notiong that you are nothing more than the result of randomness not worry you?

 

The fact we are conscious and able to think coherently about such things for me points to design. So perhaps it is merely that we percieve mutations as random because we as yet don't fully understand the processes that lead to the mutations in the first place.

[Skye]

I'm reading one at the moment thats what inspired the idea. My point is how come this randomness leads to such effective design?

How effective are they though? You can only rate their effectiveness relative to each other really. And selection does that for us anyway, which is why we have some quite effective designs.

The whole notion af randomness doesn't sit well with me. There are many examples of genetic mutations that seemingly preempt the enviornment they eventually settle into.

Maybe they settle into the environment that suits their mutation?

Does the notiong that you are nothing more than the result of randomness not worry you?

Worrying never solved anything. Anyway I'm not just the result of randomness, selection is highly selective, and it only selects the...least worst.

The fact we are conscious and able to think coherently about such things for me points to design. So perhaps it is merely that we percieve mutations as random because we as yet don't fully understand the processes that lead to the mutations in the first place.

Why does consciousness point to design? Of all the things in the universe, it's probably the one we have the least idea of it's 'design'.

 

By the way, designing something using forethought isn't a great deal different to creating something using hindsight.

[NavajoEverclear]

Sounds like you may be a religous person having trouble accepting the theory of evolution and thinking it must be not true for your own beliefs to remain true (i used to be). Or maybe you are simply bothered by the idea of randomness as you say. But seems like you'd just accept it unless you had a religious reason not to. If you understand natural selection, it doesn't really matter how the mutations come about. That which is best at surviving, survives, and that which is not so good, do not survive. Depending on the dramaticness or not, it takes many many generations to weed out the not so good.

 

The theory of natural selection is nothing but common sense. And randomness, well we cant be sure it is random. Chaos theory shows that random appearing results, can be caused by a highly ordered system. Besides that random, and accident are human words with implications of value. Genes neither have purpose, OR lack of purpose. They just are, then put in natural selection, and naturally they evolve.

[swansont]

I'm reading one at the moment thats what inspired the idea. My point is how come this randomness leads to such effective design? The whole notion af randomness doesn't sit well with me. There are many examples of genetic mutations that seemingly preempt the enviornment they eventually settle into. Does the notiong that you are nothing more than the result of randomness not worry you?

 

The fact we are conscious and able to think coherently about such things for me points to design. So perhaps it is merely that we percieve mutations as random because we as yet don't fully understand the processes that lead to the mutations in the first place.

 

Mutations are only part of the process. You have selection as well. Think about it as a feedback loop.

[Thales]

I'm not religous and I do believe in natural selection. My point was more one of the abundance of structure in the world we have bought about via consciousness. The organisation and structure we have created seems to be the result of some overall structure governing evolution. I'm not saying god or a god is responsible just merely trying to grapple with the issue of our apparent suitibilty. And whether or not consciousness is a natural result of biological evolution.

[swansont]

I'm not religous and I do believe in natural selection. My point was more one of the abundance of structure in the world we have bought about via consciousness. The organisation and structure we have created seems to be the result of some overall structure governing evolution. I'm not saying god or a god is responsible just merely trying to grapple with the issue of our apparent suitibilty. And whether or not consciousness is a natural result of biological evolution.

 

Physics, chemistry and biology follow certain laws. That gives rise to structure.

[LucidDreamer]

I believe that if the process of creating mutations were truly random then we would not see the diversity of life that we see today. I am not suggesting divine intervention; I am suggesting that the process of creating mutations has also adapted and so has life's ability to survive minor differences of the genome in an individual For instance, a common form of beneficial mutation occurs when a gene, coding for a protein, gets an extra copy of itself in an individuals genome.

 

This protein catalyzes a certain chemical reaction. If the overexpression of this protein causes a positive effect then the individual is more likely to survive due to natural selection. If it causes a detrimental effect then this mutation will be removed through natural selection. But there is also a chance that the overexpression of this protein will not cause a significant effect. This is because life has adapted a myriad of ways to deal with variety. This overexpressed gene will simply be broken down by the liver, expelled from the body in urine, or be changed into another form of useful compound.

 

This gene, and thus its protein, is no longer vital to the organism because it’s an extra copy. This gives a chance for mutations to work their magic. Once this extra gene is incorporated into the gene pool of the species it will be worked on by mutations and natural selection over many years. Eventually a mutation will occur where the protein is able to perform some minor beneficial role. This will give the individuals an ever so slight advantage and this mutation will be more likely to be inherited. After this point further mutations will occur that increase the beneficial role of the protein. What beneficial role it plays will depend on its current structure and what role its played in the past (due to probability).

 

My point is that it is not entirely random. Life has adapted so that it is more likely to produce beneficial mutations. It has adapted so that it can sustain a variety in an individuals genes so that not every mutation is detrimental. It has also adapted so that when a beneficial mutation does arise it is more capable of taking advantage of it.

[NavajoEverclear]

I'm not religous and I do believe in natural selection. My point was more one of the abundance of structure in the world we have bought about via consciousness. The organisation and structure we have created seems to be the result of some overall structure governing evolution. I'm not saying god or a god is responsible just merely trying to grapple with the issue of our apparent suitibilty. And whether or not consciousness is a natural result of biological evolution.

 

thanks for clearing that up. Well i guess i see what your saying, but it doesn't seem as big a deal to me. I guess randomness would make evolution take longer, but it inevitably could still result in all the species we have today.

 

But then again, we certainly don't have proof that its just random, we simply dont know what it is if it isn't random. Also, if you think about it, a cell capable of altering its own genes to suit the enviroment better, would be a great benefit that would be selected by natural selection.

 

There was book called Quantum Evolution, i never finished reading it, and took it back to the library. The first part of it basically just goes over principles of biology and evolution, so i never got to the exciting stuff.

But i did read the jacket, and it said something about some way related to quantum physics that genes could choose their evolution somehow. Such a huge claim should make one a little skeptical, but its worth checking out.

[5614]

the thing with random is that when something like life, is possible random, there are always going to be patterns spotted, making it seem not random and logical.

 

maybe life is random, but not truely random, it has basic laws, as swansont said in post #8, and these basic laws take away the true randomness about it... allowing us to see a pattern... and then we no longer call it random.

[NavajoEverclear]

thats what i was thinking. i dont think the laws of physics allow for randomness, if they did they wouldn't be laws, and i universe would be wishy wash and weird. Or something.

[swansont]

thats what i was thinking. i dont think the laws of physics allow for randomness, if they did they wouldn't be laws, and i universe would be wishy wash and weird. Or something.

 

What makes you think that randomness isn't allowed in physics? QM is probablistic in nature. If I have a collection of unstable nuclei, I know that a certain fraction of them will decay in a period of time, but I can't identify which ones beforehand. I can shine a bunch of X-rays on a lead plate and know that some fraction will make it through without interacting, but again I can't tell which ones ahead of time.

 

The universe is weird. Haven't you been paying attention?

[john5746]

I'm not religous and I do believe in natural selection. My point was more one of the abundance of structure in the world we have bought about via consciousness. The organisation and structure we have created seems to be the result of some overall structure governing evolution. I'm not saying god or a god is responsible just merely trying to grapple with the issue of our apparent suitibilty. And whether or not consciousness is a natural result of biological evolution.

 

I don't think evolution is entirely random. I think the environment has an affect on genes. "Use it or loose it", "Use it alot and get better"

[swansont]

I don't think evolution is entirely random. I think the environment has an affect on genes. "Use it or loose it", "Use it alot and get better"

 

I don't think anybody with any competence inthe subject contends that evolution is random. Natural selection is decidedly non-random.

 

"Use it or loose it", "Use it alot and get better" apply, but not in response to the mere use - that's Lamarckism. Use it a lot, and and those genes and any that pop up making it better will tend to be passed along.

[john5746]

I don't think anybody with any competence inthe subject contends that evolution is random. Natural selection is decidedly non-random.

 

"Use it or loose it"' date=' "Use it alot and get better" apply, but not in response to the mere use - that's Lamarckism. Use it a lot, and and those genes and any that pop up making it better will tend to be passed along.[/quote']

 

Yes, we are doing alot of "assuming"

 

Of course, certain traits become desirable in certain environments, which leads to more offspring, etc. But, I think genes can be "turned on" by the environment or the hosts' response to the environment. So, maybe mutations themselves can be spurned by response to the environment

[swansont]

Yes' date=' we are doing alot of "assuming"

 

Of course, certain traits become desirable in certain environments, which leads to more offspring, etc. But, I think genes can be "turned on" by the environment or the hosts' response to the environment. So, maybe mutations themselves can be spurned by response to the environment[/quote']

 

You'd need to find/provide evidence of that, of course.

 

There's a lot of evidence that Lamarckism isn't a valid mechanism.

[NavajoEverclear]

Yeh the universe is really wacky, maybe there is even such thing as freedom and some randomness, i wont pretend to really understand it.

 

But just a little on Quantum stuff, i really dont know much about it all, but I think the fields of probablility are related to the capacity in which we are capable of studying them. But in actuality they really are in only one place at a time, we just dont know how to to calculate EXACTLY. Well maybe thats incorrect but thats what it seems like to me

[ydoaPs]

i have heard (books and discovery channel) "_____ then evolved _____ so that it could _____." that is such crap.

 

side note: wings. how? it took hundreds of years of intelligent effort to and millions of speculation for humans to accomplish it. how did random copying errors create such a precise appendage?

[Skye]

Wings don't need to be especially precise, something flat basically, an aerofoil is better though.

 

People have made wings for quite some time, such as in kites and boomerangs.

[LucidDreamer]

i have heard (books and discovery channel) "_____ then evolved _____ so that it could _____." that is such crap.

 

side note: wings. how? it took hundreds of years of intelligent effort to and millions of speculation for humans to accomplish it. how did random copying errors create such a precise appendage?

I have to admit that when I look at the wonders of life design does come to mind. However, we have never observed any form of intelligent design besides the designs of man. We have observed numerous examples of change through evolution though. These changes are much smaller than the kind of changes that bring about completely different families or classes of animals, but they have been observed. We also see a fossil record that suggests these small changes bring about much larger ones over time.

 

By all indications these processes are occurring through natural means. We have no evidence of a designer besides the complex system itself. You could argue that the system, with all of the forces, matter, energy, etc, was created by intelligent design, but there is no conclusive evidence either way. It is simply here. Whether it appears to be designed or not is just speculation and opinion. But there doesn't appear to be any day to day intelligent influence, only the forces of nature. Just because we haven't uncovered all of the answers doesn't mean that they aren't there. Lack of evidence for either intelligent design or natural processes proves neither side.

 

In answer to your question about wings: Of course the wings didn't just sprout one day on bird-like creature from a single mutation. They evolved gradually from a series of mutations that were of benefit to proto-bird. Have you ever seen gliding creatures that leap from tree to tree? If you are looking for an intermediate between a Raptor and an Ave then a gliding creature is a likely candidate.