Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

[Dredd]

One place scientists and mystics may be able to work together is the Copenhagen summit.

New reports show that the "inviolate" eastern ice shelf of Antarctica is now a threatened entity too.

Surely both scientists and mystics want world civilization not to cease to exist? :shrug:

 

[hay_you]

Then let them display some, or be silent.

That works both ways.

 

[hay_you]

One place scientists and mystics may be able to work together is the Copenhagen summit.

New reports show that the "inviolate" eastern ice shelf of Antarctica is now a threatened entity too.

Surely both scientists and mystics want world civilization not to cease to exist?

There is bright future for the earth and man, if you believe in a creator, but I don't know if you believe the scientists.

 

[hay_you]

James

No, because you're imagining this happens with single animals. Instead, what happens is that you have, say 100 animals. 1 of them has a random mutation that it passes along to its offspring, while the other 99 sets of offspring have no mutation. Now, if that mutation is harmful then those offspring that have it will die off before reproducing (let's say), and they are so small in number that none of them will be likely to be fossilised.

But suppose that the mutation makes the offspring better able to survive, and/or causes them to have more offspring. In the first generation, we have 99 unmutated sets of offspring and 1 mutated set. The mutated set all survive while some of the unmutated ones don't reproduce. In the next generation, the proportion of animals with the favourable mutation is larger than 1 in 100. Now it might be 1 in 50, say. The mutated ones are still more successful, leading in the next generation to a further increase in proportions, to 1 in 20 or 1 in 10. And so on and so on until the original "mutants" comprise virtually the entire population of animals. And as these mutant animals come to dominate, they become increasing likely to be fossilised, too.

Do you understand this explanation?

“
Also the whole point of evolution is a mistake happens, then another and then another, then something is used, this leaves a trail of mistakes . The only way any of this can be passed on is for these mistakes to reproduce.
”
No. The mistakes don't reproduce (or at least not as many of them do as the successes). So mistakes are quickly wiped out but successful mutations flourish.

Do you understand?

If you read your post it is all assumptions. There is nothing about facts in that. But if you go with this type of reasoning, you said that the unmutated ones some would not reproduce (that is an assumption) because they were the 'Normal ones that were the only ones that reproduced. Also DNA even from 2 mutated animals in a few generations, will have offspring that is like the 'normal' one. So the tendency for that animals species is that they will revert back to where they were. So in the population the 'normal' ones would always be in the majority. Besides, with 'evolution' eventually some animal has to become something different that what it was. Because this is an ongoing thing that would mean that , over time more and more of these mutant (transitional) ones would be in the fossil record. Also these are random mutations, some might be extreme ( they would not survive) some maybe minor( they might survive) and some of these have to survive. But because as you said these mutations are random, there would also be a great variety , of different kinds of mutant animals. They should be found in the fossil record. In 'evolution' just because , something is useful and because mutations are random, from the heredity, of animal , these mutations would still be happening. In other words evolution doesn't know to stop this. But today we consider mutations to be bad. And only slight changes, happen. Also over time favors, the 'normal', rather than, the abnormal. And humans are humans, chimps are chimps. We don't see the steps in between. This is the same in the fossil record.
As I said earlier, this whole discussion is hypothetical anyway. Because scientists would have to prove, that any of this actually happened. So it is really just ideas, against other ideas.

 

[GeoffP]

James

If you read your post it is all assumptions.

Simply put: no. None of that is an assumption. The most basic act of gene detection and quantitative trait locus mapping is implicitly for the identification of mutant genes responsible for altered phenotypes. I've worked on half a dozen such projects so far and I have an additional two ongoing.

But if you go with this type of reasoning, you said that the unmutilated ones

Unmutated. Not 'mutilated'. A mutation may be beneficial or detrimental. If I were suspicious I would call your terminology propaganda.

some would not reproduce (that is an assumption) because they were the 'Normal ones that were the only ones that reproduced.

This is not what the example says. Read it again.

Also DNA even from 2 mutated animals in a few generations, will have offspring that is like the 'normal' one.

That depends on two factors: prevalence of the mutation, and the dominance of the mutation. A dominant or additively-acting gene will remain apparent in the offspring in perpetuity, and always expose the carriers to selection, which may be for or against. Even a recessive, low-frequency mutation will be exposed to selection in homozygotes vs. hets and the alternative homozygote class. Your stipulations are unnecessary and arbitrary to the point of the argument.

So the tendency for that animals species is that they will revert back to where they were. So in the population the 'normal' ones would always be in the majority.

You do not appear to understand how genetics operates. In order to have this discussion, you need to understand this.

Besides, with 'evolution' eventually some animal has to become something different that what it was.

Which it may do, with sufficient evolutionary time. You are asking to see macrochanges over tiny increments of evolutionary time.

Of course, sometimes that does indeed happen.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

Because this is an ongoing thing that would mean that , over time more and more of these mutant (transitional) ones would be in the fossil record. Also these are random mutations, some might be extreme ( they would not survive) some maybe minor( they might survive) and some of these have to survive. But because as you said these mutations are random, there would also be a great variety , of different kinds of mutant animals. They should be found in the fossil record.

There are innumerable lines of animals that do not have present-day survivors, hay_you. Dinosaurs. Smilodon. Most species of bear-cats. Pliosaurs. Archeopterix. And so forth, and so on, ad nearly infinitum. In other words: you do see these mutant types, in lines that did not survive.

In 'evolution' just because , something is useful and because mutations are random, from the heredity, of animal , these mutations would still be happening

.

And they do. I detect them regularly.

In other words evolution doesn't know to stop this.

Evolution "knows" nothing. It is only a process.

But today we consider mutations to be bad.

Some are. Some are not.

And only slight changes, happen. Also over time favors, the 'normal', rather than, the abnormal. And humans are humans, chimps are chimps. We don't see the steps in between. This is the same in the fossil record.

We do see the changes in between, in several lineages. We've only been studying this for about 150 years. You expect everything to be solved? You expect all the fossils to be found? We've probably found less than 1% of all even large species that ever existed.

Because scientists would have to prove, that any of this actually happened. So it is really just ideas, against other ideas.

No. Look up 'QTL mapping'. This will illustrate the reality of quantitative genetic differentiation, and thereby of mutations causing phenotypic change.

 

[hay_you]

There are innumerable lines of animals that do not have present-day survivors, hay_you. Dinosaurs. Smilodon. Most species of bear-cats. Pliosaurs. Archeopterix. And so forth, and so on, ad nearly infinitum. In other words: you do see these mutant types, in lines that did not survive.

There have been many animals that have gone extinct. There are many today that go extinct.
Scientists, use completed animals as transitional ones, but you still need a record of the real transitional ones. The ones that are trying find a place where the legs have to go. This would be a random action. ( because 'evolution 'doesn't know what is supposed to do) You have to ask that in the start to life, how did any heredity get into the first life, to mutate into something. In 'macroevolution' the information of legs are there, but as to placement and size and shape, and muscles and nerves, and brain function, all have to change. Scientists are going to have to prove that this can happen and did happen without the mistakes. Other wise, it is just an idea.

 

[hay_you]

No. Look up 'QTL mapping'. This will illustrate the reality of quantitative genetic differentiation, and thereby of mutations causing phenotype change.

Difficulties in definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype
Despite its seemingly straightforward definition, the concept of the phenotype has some hidden subtleties. First, most of the molecules and structures coded by the genetic material are not visible in the appearance of an organism, yet they are observable (for example by Western blotting) and are thus part of the phenotype. Human blood groups are an example. So, by extension, the term phenotype must include characteristics that can be made visible by some technical procedure. Another extension adds behaviour to the phenotype since behaviours are also affected by both genotypic and environmental factors.

This just in the idea stage. And still does not answer how some animals got to be something else. If it started out as a lizard it is still a lizard, for example.

 

[Dredd]

There is bright future for the earth and man, if you believe in a creator, but I don't know if you believe the scientists.

I try not to focus on the person, so "believe the scientists" would be stated by me as "understand the science". Same with religion you know, some religious people are real wackos and some science people are real wackos too.

Some religion is quite good and some science is quite good.

I accept what I can prove and what passes the smell test, in both science and in religion.

I do not look for doubtful disputations for entertainment, I look for fact and truth so I can understand the earth and cosmos around us.

The bright future thing seems very speculative, and depending on what religion or what science, is time bound.

But a brighter future might be possible if mystics and scientists worked toward the common good of humanity it seems to me.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Scientists, use completed animals as transitional ones, but you still need a record of the real transitional ones. The ones that are trying find a place where the legs have to go. This would be a random action.

It has been explained to you many times that this opinion of yours on what constitutes transitional is incorrect.
You're trolling again.

Other wise, it is just an idea.

More trolling.

 

[hay_you]

Hi Dredd

But a brighter future might be possible if mystics and scientists worked toward the common good of humanity it seems to me.

This would be true. But I have to go one step further. It won't save the world.
Intervention is the only answer.
I can't see man, even with science, stopping what is going on.
I can not see people getting along enough, and willing to sacrifice , their things, to do it.
I don't think people realize that, they are in something now that they will not be able to get out of. If you have some knowledge of spiritual things, then this idea is not new or foreign to you.
This idea of no God, was written about over 2000 years ago, that people would be saying this. At that time it was unthinkable for most. Today it is common.

 

[shichimenshyo]

Hi Dredd


This idea of no God, was written about over 2000 years ago, that people would be saying this. At that time it was unthinkable for most. Today it is common.

Because people now practice common sense.

 

[Dywyddyr]

This would be true. But I have to go one step further. It won't save the world.
Intervention is the only answer.
I can't see man, even with science, stopping what is going on.
I can not see people getting along enough, and willing to sacrifice , their things, to do it.
I don't think people realize that, they are in something now that they will not be able to get out of. If you have some knowledge of spiritual things, then this idea is not new or foreign to you.

That's a good idea.
Give up trying.
Don't bother making an effort.
Leave all up to some fictional "god".

I never really considered religion to be nihilistic 'til I came across you.

 

[hay_you]

Because people now practice common sense.

Or lost all sense.

 

[shichimenshyo]

Or lost all sense.

I doubt it. People are just more educated now, so they ask more questions and can more readily see the flaws in certain types of literature.

 

[hay_you]

That's a good idea.
Give up trying.
Don't bother making an effort.
Leave all up to some fictional "god".

I never really considered religion to be nihilistic 'til I came across you.

Actually it's not that at all.
If people don't want it though, that is up to them.
That is their choice.
This is about people that really want a better world, many have other motives.
The world will not give up trying. It is just that they won't be able to do it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Actually it's not that at all.

No?

The world will not give up trying. It is just that they won't be able to do it.

And if you start off convinced you won't be able to do it (and that help will come anyway) you won't make the effort required.

Nihilistic.

 

[spidergoat]

There have been many animals that have gone extinct. There are many today that go extinct.
Scientists, use completed animals as transitional ones, but you still need a record of the real transitional ones. The ones that are trying find a place where the legs have to go. This would be a random action. ( because 'evolution 'doesn't know what is supposed to do) You have to ask that in the start to life, how did any heredity get into the first life, to mutate into something. In 'macroevolution' the information of legs are there, but as to placement and size and shape, and muscles and nerves, and brain function, all have to change. Scientists are going to have to prove that this can happen and did happen without the mistakes. Other wise, it is just an idea.

They have. Even with the transition from our ancestor, an ape-like creature to modern Homo sapiens has several intermediate steps. Just go to any natural history museum and you can see them.

 

[hay_you]

They have. Even with the transition from our ancestor, an ape-like creature to modern Homo sapiens has several intermediate steps. Just go to any natural history museum and you can see them.

This is what scientists say, but that is not the evidence. Because some thing look sort of similar doesn't mean one came from another. No one has seen or is there any evidence that this correct.

 

[hay_you]

And if you start off convinced you won't be able to do it (and that help will come anyway) you won't make the effort required.

People knew this 40 years ago, the thing was to do it then. It was written about over 2000 years ago,that this would happen. It's not as though we didn't have warning.Even now people won't do it until they are forced. You can live as with as little a footprint as you can, but I still see most people doing the same things they always have. If we live like this now how can we say, anything to other countries.
But ofcourse we all should do the best we can, the reality is though it's too little too late. Besides this is not the only problem , there is crime, wars, people not wanting to get along. Many starving to death.It really is many things.
Intervention is needed, we need all this division between people done away with. Also all the misinformation that makes up our world.
This is beyond what man can do.

 

[James R]

hay_you:

If you read your post it is all assumptions. There is nothing about facts in that.

No. It's simple common sense.

But if you go with this type of reasoning, you said that the unmutated ones some would not reproduce (that is an assumption) because they were the 'Normal ones that were the only ones that reproduced. Also DNA even from 2 mutated animals in a few generations, will have offspring that is like the 'normal' one. So the tendency for that animals species is that they will revert back to where they were.

No. That's a major error. There's no tendency for species to "revert" to what they were previously once a genetic mutation is there. I don't know where you got that idea. Most of the time, genes are just copied to the next generation, with no changes. If a mutation happens once it will be copied to all subsequent generations.

So in the population the 'normal' ones would always be in the majority. Besides, with 'evolution' eventually some animal has to become something different that what it was.

You're different from your mother.

Because this is an ongoing thing that would mean that , over time more and more of these mutant (transitional) ones would be in the fossil record.

If you dug up your ancestors, you'd find that none of them were the same as their mothers.

But because as you said these mutations are random, there would also be a great variety , of different kinds of mutant animals. They should be found in the fossil record.

I already explained this point to you. Go back and re-read my previous posts. If you are having trouble understanding, please ask questions. Don't just contradict and go back to your previous incorrect assumptions. That just makes you look stupid.

In 'evolution' just because , something is useful and because mutations are random, from the heredity, of animal , these mutations would still be happening.

Yes. Every now and then. Mutations only occur rarely. In fact, sex is a much more important way of generating genetic diversity, but it is harder to understand so I'm starting on the simple stuff for you.

But today we consider mutations to be bad.

I explained this to your previously, too. Go back until you understand this simple point: most mutations are neutral - neither good nor bad. Of those that aren't neutral, many are bad, but a few will be good. The good ones will be naturally selected and come to dominate the population over time. If you don't understand this, please ask me some questions.

And humans are humans, chimps are chimps. We don't see the steps in between. This is the same in the fossil record.

There are at least a dozen known fossils of pre-human species.

But we wouldn't expect any steps between chimps and humans, because humans aren't descended from chimps. Do you understand this point?

Regarding mutations, let me give you a simple analogical example. In the folllowing, I will assume that each animal is represented by a number: 0 or 1 or 2. 0 means a "normal" animal, and "1" means an animal that has a favorable mutation, "2" means an unfavorable mutation. Let's take a small population of 3 animals of the species. We start with:

0 0 0

(3 unmutated animals). Suppose these animals all reproduce asexually at the same time, by cloning 2 exact copies of themselves, then the original generation all dies at the same time. So, the next generation will be:

00 00 00

Suppose in the very next generationl by random change one of them mutates:

0000 0000 0020

One of these animals has a mutation that is harmful, so it doesn't survive to reproduce. The next generation is

00000000 00000000 000000

and we're back to a set of animals with no mutations. Note that to see animal "2" in the fossil record there's only one chance for it to be fossilised, since it only lives for one generation and it is 1 out of 12 animals that has a chance of being fossilised. 11 out of the 12 animals are "normal". The chances of fossilisation of the mutant are tiny.

The next generation is:

0000000000100000 0000000000000000 000000000000

Now we have one animal with a favorable mutation. This animals survives and faithfully copies the mutation to the next generation:

0000000001100000 00000000 000000

But wait! What has happened here? Oh look. A new disease has struck that wipes out 50% of animals of type "0" in every generation, while animals with favorable mutation "1" survive to reproduce. The next generation is:

00001111000 0000 000

The disease continues to ravage the "0" population. The next generation is:

00111111110 00 00

Now, the "1" animals are the dominant animals in the population. The next generation is

01113111111111111 0 0

The "1"s are even more dominant, and look! There's a new mutation: a "3" animal. Who knows what that will do? The next generation is:

111111111111111111111111111111

Looks like the "3" was a harmful mutation. The disease has now wiped out the "0" population completely, leaving only "1"s. The "0" species is extinct and now we have a new species of "1" animals.