4 ms·

But doesn't that reduce to a point where something useful becomes from separate useless components? In your case, why would a flagella be useful if it's not pr

by arkey 3y ago

But doesn't that reduce to a point where something useful becomes from separate useless components? In your case, why would a flagella be useful if it's not propelling something? A flagella is only useful as a component of something, but not by itself.

jjk166 3y ago
Flagella only exist as components of something, they do not need to and shouldn't exist by themselves. If flagella spontaneously popped into existence and cells picked them up, that would be quite difficult to explain without design, but cells producing flagella because they are useful components makes perfect sense on its own.
- lebek 3y ago
  I think he's saying, random mutation wouldn't produce all required components at once. One mutation gives you a bit of a flagella, another gives you bit of a nose, but how does the flagella mutation survive to coexist with the nose mutation that makes it useful. I suspect the answer is that having flagella without a nose is still better than having no flagella. If so it suggests evolution isn't good at accessing groups of mutations that aren't individually beneficial.
  - jjk166 3y ago
    Evolution doesn't produce 1st part of the flagellum, second part of the flagellum, third part of the flagellum. It produces shitty flagellum, better flagellum, good flagellum. But the problem is we don't see the intermediate forms. So right now you might see a complicated flagellum that has a lot of highly specialized parts that all need eachother, but that is merely a refinement that took place after all the pieces were already there. Like once an arch is complete, all the scaffolding that was holding it up is now vestigial and if it is removed the arch will remain standing.
    - crudcodersare 3y ago
      It seems you may have misunderstood the original argument. The iterative approach suggests increments so minute at each step that they wouldn't significantly impact an organism's survival at any given time. Also given the extremely slow process of evolution and the relatively short number of iterations it is infeasible to suggest such a solution. If a person would like to create an iPhone it's easy to tell them to start with a shitty scrap of metal and work from there. You can make that sort of argument as a solution for creating anything but it is clearly not feasible.
      - mrguyorama 3y ago
        >so minute at each step that they wouldn't significantly impact an organism's survival at any given time. That's the thing. Evolution isn't "survival of the fittest" or even "driven by more efficient anything", evolution is simply; if you die before you pass on your genes, you don't pass on your genes. Over long enough time scales, with large enough populations, with tight enough tolerances and strict enough niches, the system roughly approximates a directed iteration of more efficient parts. Nothing about evolution prevents carrying forward explicitly negative mutations! Nothing about evolution prevents carrying completely unused functionality and features! Nothing about evolution guarantees monotonically increasing fitness! The giraffe has a certain nerve that goes from it's brain, all the way down around it's aorta, back up it's neck, to it's tongue. It does this, because in the fish we all evolved from, such a detour was less than a centimeter longer than an "optimal" path, and as each next generation went in different directions, it's just not that big a deal. A few hundred extra calories in development, and rare instances of a negative injury outcome are just not going to get fixed, because evolution is almost never vigilant. Most higher level animals have mating behaviors that explicitly favor "wasted" energy, including the long neck of giraffes! Sexual selection has a stronger influence on most animals than evolutionary pressure. > Also given the extremely slow process of evolution and the relatively short number of iterations it is infeasible to suggest such a solution This is silly. The vast majority of the ground work for complex life was developed by single celled organisms that produced a new generation every half hour, there were billions of these little creatures experiencing basically any possible mutation all the time, and a water droplet with a billion short lived single cells is exactly the kind of tight tolerance, competitive atmosphere where evolution is most prominent! Evolution is not iteration. Evolution is pruning bad branches in your breadth first tree based algorithm.
- arkey 3y ago
  > cells producing flagella because they are useful components makes perfect sense on its own. But that's the thing, this sort of implies that a complete flagellum can be spontaneously produced because it's useful, which sort of collides with the parent comment on systems evolving by combining previously useful components. Flagella aren't useful until they are complete. So intermediate forms should be lost, right? Would this leave us in a scenario where a single combination of several mutations at the same time suddenly gives you a complete, functional flagellum?

by arkey 3y ago

jjk166 3y ago

Flagella only exist as components of something, they do not need to and shouldn't exist by themselves. If flagella spontaneously popped into existence and cells picked them up, that would be quite difficult to explain without design, but cells producing flagella because they are useful components makes perfect sense on its own.

lebek 3y ago
I think he's saying, random mutation wouldn't produce all required components at once. One mutation gives you a bit of a flagella, another gives you bit of a nose, but how does the flagella mutation survive to coexist with the nose mutation that makes it useful. I suspect the answer is that having flagella without a nose is still better than having no flagella. If so it suggests evolution isn't good at accessing groups of mutations that aren't individually beneficial.
- jjk166 3y ago
  Evolution doesn't produce 1st part of the flagellum, second part of the flagellum, third part of the flagellum. It produces shitty flagellum, better flagellum, good flagellum. But the problem is we don't see the intermediate forms. So right now you might see a complicated flagellum that has a lot of highly specialized parts that all need eachother, but that is merely a refinement that took place after all the pieces were already there. Like once an arch is complete, all the scaffolding that was holding it up is now vestigial and if it is removed the arch will remain standing.
  - crudcodersare 3y ago
    It seems you may have misunderstood the original argument. The iterative approach suggests increments so minute at each step that they wouldn't significantly impact an organism's survival at any given time. Also given the extremely slow process of evolution and the relatively short number of iterations it is infeasible to suggest such a solution. If a person would like to create an iPhone it's easy to tell them to start with a shitty scrap of metal and work from there. You can make that sort of argument as a solution for creating anything but it is clearly not feasible.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      >so minute at each step that they wouldn't significantly impact an organism's survival at any given time. That's the thing. Evolution isn't "survival of the fittest" or even "driven by more efficient anything", evolution is simply; if you die before you pass on your genes, you don't pass on your genes. Over long enough time scales, with large enough populations, with tight enough tolerances and strict enough niches, the system roughly approximates a directed iteration of more efficient parts. Nothing about evolution prevents carrying forward explicitly negative mutations! Nothing about evolution prevents carrying completely unused functionality and features! Nothing about evolution guarantees monotonically increasing fitness! The giraffe has a certain nerve that goes from it's brain, all the way down around it's aorta, back up it's neck, to it's tongue. It does this, because in the fish we all evolved from, such a detour was less than a centimeter longer than an "optimal" path, and as each next generation went in different directions, it's just not that big a deal. A few hundred extra calories in development, and rare instances of a negative injury outcome are just not going to get fixed, because evolution is almost never vigilant. Most higher level animals have mating behaviors that explicitly favor "wasted" energy, including the long neck of giraffes! Sexual selection has a stronger influence on most animals than evolutionary pressure. > Also given the extremely slow process of evolution and the relatively short number of iterations it is infeasible to suggest such a solution This is silly. The vast majority of the ground work for complex life was developed by single celled organisms that produced a new generation every half hour, there were billions of these little creatures experiencing basically any possible mutation all the time, and a water droplet with a billion short lived single cells is exactly the kind of tight tolerance, competitive atmosphere where evolution is most prominent! Evolution is not iteration. Evolution is pruning bad branches in your breadth first tree based algorithm.
arkey 3y ago
> cells producing flagella because they are useful components makes perfect sense on its own. But that's the thing, this sort of implies that a complete flagellum can be spontaneously produced because it's useful, which sort of collides with the parent comment on systems evolving by combining previously useful components. Flagella aren't useful until they are complete. So intermediate forms should be lost, right? Would this leave us in a scenario where a single combination of several mutations at the same time suddenly gives you a complete, functional flagellum?