Author Topic: Chance and random mutation, how can natural selection ever occur?  (Read 2040 times)

Offline pachomius

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
What is chance?

And what is random mutation?


Isn't chance the mother of random mutation which is the first phase in the evolution of a new life species?


How indeed can there be any random mutation that can get to be ever naturally selected to eventually come into being a new species of life?

When the chance that leads to a favorable beginning of a new species can also destroy in the next split second that favorable whatever mutation of an extant species?



Pachomius

Offline Gareth Southwell

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 359
Hi Pachomius,

Interesting questions - you have a few here, I think.

Firstly, the definition of 'chance' is the broadest one, and it is problematic. If - as scientific determinism argues - there is a cause for everything, then, in a sense, there's no such thing as chance. If a supernatural being (Laplace's Demon), or a supercomputer, could possess all available information about a system, then they could calculate the outcome, which would seem to rule chance out (unless, of course, we subscribe to quantum mechanics!). However, I'm just pointing out that the definition of chance is problematic in itself, without even beginning to speak about its role in natural selection (so, a separate topic, maybe).

Secondly, the definition of 'random mutation' is, in one sense, affected by the definition of chance, and in another sense it isn't. If we toss a coin, then the result may, in one sense, be said to be random, but in another, it obeys definite laws (perhaps). The same is true of random mutation: 'random' here can therefore simply mean 'beyond the limits of human calculation', or 'not decided by the system of which it is a part'. So, in the system of genetic inheritance, mutation is not planned for, but is an outside influence (a flaw in the system, if you will).

Thirdly - I'm not quite sure what you mean by this question. Random mutation does involve chance (as defined above), and does in some cases seem to lead to new species.

Fourthly and fifth - can you be clearer on these points? You seem to be suggesting, somehow, that chance undermines the process of evolution by natural selection, but it's not quite clear.

So, there are two problems here: (1) the definition of chance, and (2) the role of random mutation in evolution. Can you clarify which you want to focus on, or elaborate on how the two are linked, please?
This site is 100% free. To support it, you can Buy Books, Buy Art, Advertise, or Pay for Tutoring. For questions, please visit the FAQs.

Offline pachomius

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Gareth, you are the founder and operator of this forum?

Glad to know you.

You seem to be a sober person, unlike the operator whatever of another philosophy forum in the US who is disposed to be annoyed badly whenever I point out to him his faux pas, and he banned me for low quality posting and then gloated before other posters that he was waiting for me to appeal to his clemency, etc.

I wrote to the webmaster of that forum but nothing came of my effort to put in my side of the story.

You see, when a web forum has attained a good number of members the people in power get to be self-important that they can just throw anyone out whom they don't like and justify it on all kinds of despotic yes despotic reasons, like low quality posting, or even just that they don't anymore want you around and they are the owners of the forum.

--------------------------


I should now tell you that by chance I have come to the realization that I should have said chaos.

By chaos however just as with chance I understand the word in man in the street meaning.

Here is an example of a chaos, a giant cement mixer churning the cement, sand, and gravel inside in all kinds of directions continuously without ceasing.

So if you will imagine instead that the mixture inside is of Lego bricks, then how can ever any kind of natural selection take place and persist as to allow the formation of five letters forming the word house?

That is why I always say to myself that random mutation and natural selection cannot go together, for if we understand random mutation as a chaotic situation which to my mind is indeed the case with any random situation of events all occurring at the same time in all directions ramming against each other and never staying fixed at any time.


And I think atheist evolutionists are pulling the wool over our eyes, because they maintain that nothing is designed, yet they also hold that natural selection can take place and the selected combination or resulting selection can stay fixed, that is order and order is anathema to atheist evolutionists.



Pachomius

Offline MoQingbird

  • Moderator
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
Your model of evolution as taking place in a cement mixer is flawed. 

Imagine putting a frog in a blender and switching it on; there is no way that, say, a newt is going to evolve as the remains of the frog whirl round and round through the blades.

Fortunately, the universe doesn't work like a blender.  Frogs are born, they grow up, eat bugs, meet lady frogs, and make more frogs.  Every now and then, say once a year per frog, the universe throws a cosmic ray at the frog and hits a bit of DNA in one of its cells.  99.999% of the time, that cell will be a skin, liver, tongue, or muscle cell.  The cosmic ray will damage the DNA and possibly kill that one cell, or maybe the DNA will repair itself incorrectly resulting in a cell that turns cancerous and kills the frog.  The rest of the frogs carry on as normal.  00.001% of the time that cosmic ray might hit one of the frog's sperm cells.  99.999% of the time it'll kill the sperm cell, but 00.001% of the time the cell's DNA will repair itself with a slight change to the DNA code.  Now, 99.999% of the time that changed sperm cell will cause some strange side-effects in the egg it fertilizes that kill the baby frog before it can even get started.  But, 00.001% of the time the new baby frog will survive.  Of the baby frogs that survive, 99.999% will not be noticeably different from any other frog.  The remaining 00.001% of frogs might have some tiny little change in their proportions or camouflage or ability to survive in cold weather or some other characteristic.  If the change helps them survive better than most other frogs, then that new mutation will spread through the frog population.

Assuming the numbers above, just for illustrative purposes, the chances of one frog producing a mutation that passes something good onto one of its children is 00.001 x 00.001 x 00.001 x 00.001% per year.  That's about a 1 in 10,000,000,000 chance.  This is why it can take nature millions of years to produce significant new species, even though there are an awful lot of frogs out there!

Regarding order:  Physics absolutely guarantees the emergence of ordered matter in the universe, and not just the emergence of order, but increasing order over time.  Unless your atheist evolutionist doesn't believe in physics - and I've never met one who did - then (s)he will have no trouble with random mutations and natural selection resulting in the evolution of highly ordered organisms.

Offline pachomius

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
So, there is order in the observable universe.

I am talking with atheists, and from stock knowledge I know that atheists don't accept that there is order in the universe.

Or there are atheists who hold that there is order in the universe, and that it is necessary for anything to stay stable and develop steadily, which implies that as the thing develops it has got to be protected while it develops.



Pachomius

Offline Gareth Southwell

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 359
I think you don't need to believe in God to have order. I think you're implying that evolution could not take place without some guiding hand, but this is not necessarily the same thing as the universe being ordered.

Firstly, as MoQingbird points out, most atheists do believe in an ordered physical world. This doesn't require God, but it does require a 'given' - a set way that the universe is (its laws and constitution). Without God, this order does remain somewhat mysterious and unexplained, but no more mysterious perhaps than the existence of God would be, or existence itself!

Perhaps your point is to do with natural selection being sufficient for evolution. This is a common point of attack for religious believers, but there are some secular/atheist critics too. For instance, the philosopher Jerry Fodor has argued that natural selection does not fully account for all the features of a species. For instance, some evolutionists seem to assume that there is a definite explanation for the existence of each feature that an animal possesses: "Animal X possesses feature Y because it serves some evolutionary purpose". However, this leads to a circular argument: Why does feature Y exist? Because it serves an evolutionary purpose. How do we know it serves that purpose? Because it was selected (exists). The smarter evolutionists don't fall into this trap, but it is still surprisingly common. However, Fodor's main point is that natural selection works on individuals, not always on specific traits that those individuals possess. Cheetah's are fast, so they were 'selected' for their speed. However, they might simply have been in the right place at the right time. If a disease came along and decimated its only known predator, which lived in a specific region, then speed would not be so significant. This isn't perhaps the strongest example, but you can hopefully see what I'm getting at: just because an animal is selected, does not mean that its traits played the key role in its survival that evolutionists often seem to think.

None of this need imply God, however, but - if it is a valid point - then it perhaps implies that some traits exist due to some other process at work. Creationists would say design, but we might also imagine a life force which was simply expressing itself (I think this is Bergson's theory of Élan vital: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergson#.C3.89lan_vital).
This site is 100% free. To support it, you can Buy Books, Buy Art, Advertise, or Pay for Tutoring. For questions, please visit the FAQs.

Offline MoQingbird

  • Moderator
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 77
@pachomius

Quote
I am talking with atheists, and from stock knowledge I know that atheists don't accept that there is order in the universe.

I'll bet that your atheist acquaintances get their ideas about disorder from a mistaken understanding of the second law of thermodynamics: that's the one that says entropy, or disorder, can only increase in a closed system.

The trouble with that law is that it was originally formulated to describe the behavior of gas molecules in a closed system, i.e. a perfect box, so that people could get a grip on how steam power worked. 

Suppose I have a box full of vacuum with a divider partitioning it into two halves. If I pack a load of gas molecules into one half of it they'll be bouncing around in that side of the box, tightly packed together.  Now, I remove the divider and... the gas molecules spread out to fill up the other side.  Before I took the divider out each molecule only had a certain amount of room to move around in; with the divider out they now have twice as much room, so they're more spread out, and so they are more disordered.  The engineer-scientists who formulated the 2nd law focused on the order-disorder that they saw in the box and worded the law in terms of disorder.  Now everyone who's heard the 2nd law has come away with the idea that it guarantees increasing disorder in everything, instead of just gas molecules in a non-realistic closed system.

Personally, I see order-disorder as a silly idea imposed on the system by humans.  Nature doesn't care about order-disorder.  Imagine a clear box with two layers of children's building blocks in it.  The top layer has 8x8=64 white cubes and the bottom layer has 8x8=64 black cubes, and you see them as 'ordered'.  Now, you shake the box for a bit, then give it a couple of taps so that the cubes settle out into two layers again.  Unsurprisingly, the black and the white cubes are distributed throughout both layers, and you see its contents as 'disordered'.  But does the universe care if they're ordered or not?  No, and to see why consider a smaller box that has 2x2=4 white cubes and 2x2=4 black cubes in it.  Shake the box and let the cubes settle out.  Repeat this for a while and eventually you'll get a layer of white cubes sitting on top of a layer of black cubes again.  Has order arisen spontaneously out of chaos?  No, the universe doesn't care how the cubes are arranged; the arrangement with a white layer on top of a black layer has exactly the same status as an arrangement with a black layer on top of a white one or a one that's jumbled up with no discernible pattern as far as you can see.  The order-disorder in the box is in *your* mind, not the universe's.

So what does the universe 'care' about?

The only thing the universe seems to care about is dissipating energy as fast as possible.

In the gas box example, the kinetic energy of the gas molecules gets dissipated throughout the whole box, but because the box is supposedly a perfect closed system the total amount of energy in the box doesn't change.  It just gets spread out or dissipated.

In the box of cubes example, which is not a closed system, the energy that you put into the box by shaking it gets converted into kinetic energy of the cubes, and that then gets converted into sound and heat as the cubes bang into each other and the box.  The sound and heat carry the energy away from the box, thus the energy that you put in is dissipated.

Go back to before our sun formed and there was just a big cloud of hydrogen, but that cloud had potential energy due to the gravitational attraction of all those H2 molecules for each other.  Gravity dissipated all that potential energy by pulling the gas into a big ball.  Deep down in the center of the ball, though, a new potential energy arises.  Two hydrogen atoms squeezed together have potential energy in their repulsion for each other at very small distances.  This potential energy can be reduced by joining the two hydrogen nuclei together to form a single, more 'ordered' helium nucleus and releasing some of that potential energy as a photon.  And so, the sun ignites.

Go back to the Big Bang and the universe is a sub-atomic sized-entity with an inconceivable amount of energy in it.  The universe dissipates this energy by expanding.  Nowadays, that energy (which according to the first law of thermodynamics cannot be created or destroyed, only changed) is dissipated across 13.75 ± 0.17 billion light years space, and is still dissipating.

Hope this helps to clear up why your atheist friends think disorder is the be all and end all of the universe's 'purpose'.  Next time they bring that argument up, perhaps you can give them a lesson in what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is really about ;)