I'm not entirely sure of the point you are making, but I have no problem in admitting that my beliefs are based upon faith in things not seen. It's not very scientific I grant you but I have my reasons. The scientific method is not the only existing method useful for the increase in knowledge and wisdom.
Those who are unscientifically motivated against science frequently repeat the blunder about information not being created. They are wrong. Imperfect replicators generate useful information: this is a mathematical fact.
The simplest demonstration of this is to simplify things a little. Suppose completely random bit sequences are generated. Suppose also, some small subset of these sequences are preferred (think "fit"). Now suppose you simply throw away the generated sequences that aren't preferred.
Given these two things - a generator of pure randomness and a sieve - you generate an unlimited number of preferred (i.e. fit) sequences and throw away all the "inferior" ones.
Real evolution is more sophisticated than this, it deals with a continuous scale of fitness rather than mere boolean fitness, and it adds just a little noise to already preferred genomes (this is useful, because fitness of a genome is strongly related to the fitness of very similar genomes). But the net result is the same: lots of "better" (according to fitness) variations and pruning of "worse" (unfit) variations. i.e. generation of useful (according to fitness) information.
There's nothing random about it. There's no proof that two perfectly fitting genomes can coexist in nature either, once found.
It really does depend what you mean by information and wether or not you think the original information was useful in the first place.
It really comes down to this simple fact that if you have a random variation in information - say every possible mutation of a single genome, and some subset of this information is good - say all those variations that are fit, then all you need to do is generate the variations randomly and select the good ones. Mutation does the former, natural selection does the latter.
This is why evolution is such well established science, but the story of the generation of the first replicator remains an open question.
Take for instance a random environment, are they both fitting perfectly in any?
All environments have large random components. They are also all consistent in some ways, and evolution has to adapt to the consistent parts and cope with the random parts. This is statistically not a problem, it is very much like determining the mean of some noisy data. Adaptation is to a random selection of examples of the environment.
What I meant to say is that they may as well fit perfectly if by chance the child is not inheriting from one of his parents an unwanted say skin pigmentation, perfect otherwise.
Not to mention some very popular form of cancer nowadays. Say for instance that the only way for a presumed cheater to get banned and his account closed is asking him to play, say also that he inherited a perfect genome for the game they want him to play. Is this a good environment for an otherwise perfect genome?
It really comes down to this simple fact that if you have a random variation in information - say every possible mutation of a single genome, and some subset of this information is good - say all those variations that are fit, then all you need to do is generate the variations randomly and select the good ones. Mutation does the former, natural selection does the latter.
This is why evolution is such well established science, but the story of the generation of the first replicator remains an open question.
I think that natural selection alone is way too slow and not efficient enough to explain the development of extremely sophisticated biological systems. Especially systems that only give a benefit to an individium when they are completely developed will not come into existence randomly. I think we are just beginning to understand the driving forces behind evolution and huge improvements are required to understand how a super-complex machine like a human being has developed. Epigenetic seems to be a big step into the right direction.
At the begining of organic chemistry there was a believe in a "vis vitalis" that should be required to form organic matter (chemical compounds mainly made of carbon + hydrogen and some other elements ...). Today we know that no vis vitalis is needed and organic matter can be made out of inorganic matter.
Actually there is a believe that only life can create life but maybe one day it will be possible to create life synthetically. (That does not mean automatically that it is to a good idea to do that - we may end like Goethe´s sorcerers´s apprentice - AI is already a creepy thing)
But surely that is a very long way to go. As long as we are not able to build even the simplest bug which can reproduce itself we should not claim that we understand evolution. But in the end I think it will work out very well without the need of gods and other intelligent designers to fill the gaps ....
As long as we are not able to build even the simplest bug which can reproduce itself we should not claim that we understand evolution.
That's silly.
It really comes down to this simple fact that if you have a random variation in information - say every possible mutation of a single genome, and some subset of this information is good - say all those variations that are fit, then all you need to do is generate the variations randomly and select the good ones. Mutation does the former, natural selection does the latter.
This is why evolution is such well established science, but the story of the generation of the first replicator remains an open question.
I think that natural selection alone is way too slow and not efficient enough to explain the development of extremely sophisticated biological systems. Especially systems that only give a benefit to an individium when they are completely developed will not come into existence randomly. I think we are just beginning to understand the driving forces behind evolution and huge improvements are required to understand how a super-complex machine like a human being has developed. Epigenetic seems to be a big step into the right direction.
At the begining of organic chemistry there was a believe in a "vis vitalis" that should be required to form organic matter (chemical compounds mainly made of carbon + hydrogen and some other elements ...). Today we know that no vis vitalis is needed and organic matter can be made out of inorganic matter.
Actually there is a believe that only life can create life but maybe one day it will be possible to create life synthetically. (That does not mean automatically that it is to a good idea to do that - we may end like Goethe´s sorcerers´s apprentice - AI is already a creepy thing)
But surely that is a very long way to go. As long as we are not able to build even the simplest bug which can reproduce itself we should not claim that we understand evolution. But in the end I think it will work out very well without the need of gods and other intelligent designers to fill the gaps ....
Let's make a hypothetical assumption that what is assumed to be a perfect genome does exist in nature, let's also presume that a random environmental illness is targeting a specific group of genomes randomly, let's also postulate a conjucture that human kind is making it easier this way for the anomaly to reach its target by discriminating certain group of genomes right from the start. It is therefore reasonable to believe that there is something erratic in the sole modus operandi, wrongly infering that any genome ever gets to maturity to the point to be considered a faultless fit.
If you think about it in evolutionary terms, where the chicken's ancestor laid eggs, unsurprisingly the egg would come first.
Yes, it was quite a fall, not that the environment had anything to do with it.
In evolutionary terms eggs appeared on the screen much much before the chicken.
As to the whole concept that eventually we'll find everything. I'm not so sure, usually new discoveries bring new and different questions to answer. Yes sure we might be able to answer some of today's questions, but others are sure to replace them.
It really comes down to this simple fact that if you have a random variation in information - say every possible mutation of a single genome, and some subset of this information is good - say all those variations that are fit, then all you need to do is generate the variations randomly and select the good ones. Mutation does the former, natural selection does the latter.
This is why evolution is such well established science, but the story of the generation of the first replicator remains an open question.
I think that natural selection alone is way too slow and not efficient enough to explain the development of extremely sophisticated biological systems. Especially systems that only give a benefit to an individium when they are completely developed will not come into existence randomly. I think we are just beginning to understand the driving forces behind evolution and huge improvements are required to understand how a super-complex machine like a human being has developed. Epigenetic seems to be a big step into the right direction.
At the begining of organic chemistry there was a believe in a "vis vitalis" that should be required to form organic matter (chemical compounds mainly made of carbon + hydrogen and some other elements ...). Today we know that no vis vitalis is needed and organic matter can be made out of inorganic matter.
Actually there is a believe that only life can create life but maybe one day it will be possible to create life synthetically. (That does not mean automatically that it is to a good idea to do that - we may end like Goethe´s sorcerers´s apprentice - AI is already a creepy thing)
But surely that is a very long way to go. As long as we are not able to build even the simplest bug which can reproduce itself we should not claim that we understand evolution. But in the end I think it will work out very well without the need of gods and other intelligent designers to fill the gaps ....
Let's make a hypothetical assumption that what is assumed to be a perfect genome does exist in nature, let's also presume that a random environmental illness is targeting a specific group of genomes randomly, let's also postulate a conjucture that human kind is making it easier this way for the anomaly to reach its target by discriminating certain group of genomes right from the start. It is therefore reasonable to believe that there is something erratic in the sole modus operandi, wrongly infering that any genome ever gets to maturity to the point to be considered a faultless fit.
I didn´t say the modus operandi of selection does not work - it is simply not efficient enough. It would take millions of generations to explain such a high development. There have to much more effective algorithms at work.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
You could search the magic definitions according religion,but it never mentioned god is a magic.