Nirvanam wrote:I am only asking you to define it when you say that evolution happens through random mutation which is as a result of 'natural selection'.
Mutation doesn't happen "as a result of natural selection" (if that were the case, it wouldn't be random, would it?)
Mutations happen. Got it so far?
Nothing has to make the mutations happen - it's part of an imperfect copying process*
My bad..what I meant to say was that evolution is made possible by natural selection.
philbo wrote:Some mutations can't be passed on.. so they have no evolutionary effect.
Do we know why? This is a very important question to answer. Depending on how we answer this question we will be able to claim whether we understand
how evolution works or not
philbo wrote:Some mutations don't have any noticeable effect.. they'll get passed on, but, well, who cares if they don't have any noticeable effect?
Some mutations are actively deleterious - they'll die out pretty quick, if that's the case
Again same question applies here also, but anyway let's leave these ones and concentrate on the fully false and fully true things.
Some mutations actually help..
which we observe only after the mutation happens successfully..rather we conjecture that there must have been a mutation which allowed specie monkey x to evolve into specie monkey y having a longer tail
philbo wrote: in the case of your monkey jumping, for example: if the reason one monkey could jump better than another were genetic (e.g. a slightly longer tail, or a better gripping hand, or a tendency towards binocular vision), and that could be passed on..
Here is where I am asking what does the probability value look like
philbo wrote:then over the generations,
so probability now becomes x < 1 * y < x where x is probability of the first mutated monkey reproducing (considering the probability of it finding a mate, living long enough to find a mate, etc, etc) and y is the probability of x's offspring reproducing. What does the probability value look like say after 10 generations?
philbo wrote: mutations which aided jumping accuracy would accumulate and make for much better-jumping monkeys. (At the risk of confusing you more than you seem to be already, this doesn't actually require mutation if the gene pool already contains enough variability.)
The selection filter isn't usually "this animal with mutation will survive"/"this one without will die".. just being slightly better & more successful
Let's not go there...slightly better/worse is a function of degree or intensity of something...what is that something? chance? cannot be, no?
philbo wrote: (passing on your genes, on average, to more offspring) means as generations pass, the "useful" mutation will become more and more prevalent.
OK, if I can express this in terms of probability what may happen is that as generations go on the probability value will keep dropping and dropping until it reaches a certain value from where the probability will start reversing that is it will start increasing....a beneficial mutation will go stop at that value and start to reverse whereas a non beneficial mutation will not stop at all and keep reducing further. Sounds good for an observation but still leaves the main question unanswered.
That was just imaginary construct...only to help me understand the logic.
philbo wrote:* If you're getting more advanced in your thinking, you might think "surely a perfect copying process would be better?".. yet an imperfect one, which allows for change, will easily out-evolve a perfect copying process. Work it out..
Will pass that...my head's already spinning trying to understand this simple 'chance' theory..lol!
Let me state my viewpoint on evolution currently...
a. Evolution is a foregone conclusion...it exists, it happens.
b. Our current understanding of why evolution happens is that it is a random chance event.
c. Therefore, whenever any explanation is put forward that evolution is not a chance event then the burden of proof lies on that explanation.
d. In other words, our Null Hypothesis is that "evolution is a chance event".
e. If the guy who first chose this to be the Null Hypothesis stated the Null Hypothesis as "Evolution is not a chance event" then too we wouldn't have proved the Alternate Hypothesis as true.
f. We have to contend with the arbitrary nature of choosing the Null Hypothesis and live with it.
g. Evolution is a process. A process necessarily has an input and an output.
h. In all things that we see around us, whether natural or artificial, the process is either coded/rigid (as in 2 parts of H when combine with one part of O there can only be water and no other output) or there is a communication/information exchange or a mix of the two. There is no other possibility.
i. If our Null Hypothesis = "Evolution is a chance event" then the process of Evolution is necessarily not a coded/rigid process.
j. Therefore, Evolution requires some form of information exchange.
k. When an information exchange happens, the resultant output from the processing depends upon the content of that information in other words there must exist some rule(s) which will process that information further.
l. We currently do not know what those rules are
Given the above, I cannot either be sure that evolution is purely a chance thing or not. I'd like to know where in the above points does it turn for you in favor of evolution totally being a chance event. If the points I have made above are incorrect, please help me correct them.