4 ms·

correctly is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, and the selection process in evolution is not random.

by cortic 2y ago

jdthedisciple 2y ago
Not the selection itself is random, but the existence of genetic variants to select from randomly arises due to random genetic mutations according to the theory
- Retric 2y ago
  The critical difference is evolutionary only needs relatively short sequences to be randomly generated, and there’s many valid sequences. Building a book by generating a single random text string is practically impossible, but if you lock in any given word that’s correct and retry that’ll quickly get something. You’ll have most 8 letter or shorter words correct after 1 trillion runs, and many 9 letter words. It wouldn’t be done, but someone could probably read and understand the work at that point. Further it’s possible for a few even longer words to match at that point. People think it’s unlikely that specific sequences happened randomly, but what they ignore is all the potential sequences that didn’t occur.
  - jdthedisciple 2y ago
    The many valid sequences are relatively nothing compared to the infinitely many invalid ones, right? > You’ll have most 6 letter or shorter words correct after 1 billion tries. You think that's "quick" for dna which is made up of billions of 6-base-sequences and for a species that can only reproduce sexually once every decade or so at best?
    - Retric 2y ago
      > many valid sequences are relatively nothing compared to the infinitely many invalid ones, right? There’s finite invalid sequences, DNA isn’t infinitely long. It’s also not a question of valid or invalid we live with sub optimal DNA, so yea most people aren’t born with some new beneficial mutation. However, not winning the lottery isn’t the same things a dying, and even smaller wins still benefit us. As to our long reproductive cycle, there’s a reason we share so much in common with other primates. Most of our DNA has been worked out for a long time. We share 98% of our DNA with pigs, and 85% of it is identical in mice which has practical application in drug development. Of note common ancestors were more closely related to us because both branches diverged. Hell 60% is shared with chickens, and half of it’s shared with trees. > only reproduce sexually once every decade or so at best? Many sperm and fetuses die from harmful mutations, live babies are late in the process here. Also, because order doesn’t matter you get multiple chances to roll the same sequence for every birth. PS: There’s also quite a bit of viral insertion into our DNA, it’s mostly sexual reproduction but we have some single cell ‘ancestors’ in our recent history.
    - danparsonson 2y ago
      > The many valid sequences are relatively nothing compared to the infinitely many invalid ones, right? I dont know about the relative numbers but I don't think you do either? Are you begging the question or can you quantify? > You think that's "quick" for dna which is made up of billions of 6-base-sequences and for a species that can only reproduce sexually once every decade or so at best? We didn't start from scratch, we are very very late in the game, and the groundwork for us was laid by millions of other species that can replicate quickly, often very quickly. Unless you believe the Earth is only six thousand years or so old, in which case we might as well leave the discussion where it is.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
TechnicalVault 2y ago
The actual problem is upstream of that at the abiogenesis stage. For evolutionary selection to occur the machinery for selection must exist. Specifically information storage (DNA/RNA), replication(polymerases) and actioning (transcription) all are needed, and must continue to be able to exist for long enough to matter. Without selection pressure and inheritance you're just left with requiring a big enough universe and enough time for randomness not to matter.

correctly is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, and the selection process in evolution is not random.

by cortic 2y ago

correctly is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, and the selection process in evolution is not random.

Not the selection itself is random, but the existence of genetic variants to select from randomly arises due to random genetic mutations according to the theory

Retric 2y ago
The critical difference is evolutionary only needs relatively short sequences to be randomly generated, and there’s many valid sequences. Building a book by generating a single random text string is practically impossible, but if you lock in any given word that’s correct and retry that’ll quickly get something. You’ll have most 8 letter or shorter words correct after 1 trillion runs, and many 9 letter words. It wouldn’t be done, but someone could probably read and understand the work at that point. Further it’s possible for a few even longer words to match at that point. People think it’s unlikely that specific sequences happened randomly, but what they ignore is all the potential sequences that didn’t occur.
- jdthedisciple 2y ago
  The many valid sequences are relatively nothing compared to the infinitely many invalid ones, right? > You’ll have most 6 letter or shorter words correct after 1 billion tries. You think that's "quick" for dna which is made up of billions of 6-base-sequences and for a species that can only reproduce sexually once every decade or so at best?
  - Retric 2y ago
    > many valid sequences are relatively nothing compared to the infinitely many invalid ones, right? There’s finite invalid sequences, DNA isn’t infinitely long. It’s also not a question of valid or invalid we live with sub optimal DNA, so yea most people aren’t born with some new beneficial mutation. However, not winning the lottery isn’t the same things a dying, and even smaller wins still benefit us. As to our long reproductive cycle, there’s a reason we share so much in common with other primates. Most of our DNA has been worked out for a long time. We share 98% of our DNA with pigs, and 85% of it is identical in mice which has practical application in drug development. Of note common ancestors were more closely related to us because both branches diverged. Hell 60% is shared with chickens, and half of it’s shared with trees. > only reproduce sexually once every decade or so at best? Many sperm and fetuses die from harmful mutations, live babies are late in the process here. Also, because order doesn’t matter you get multiple chances to roll the same sequence for every birth. PS: There’s also quite a bit of viral insertion into our DNA, it’s mostly sexual reproduction but we have some single cell ‘ancestors’ in our recent history.
  - danparsonson 2y ago
    > The many valid sequences are relatively nothing compared to the infinitely many invalid ones, right? I dont know about the relative numbers but I don't think you do either? Are you begging the question or can you quantify? > You think that's "quick" for dna which is made up of billions of 6-base-sequences and for a species that can only reproduce sexually once every decade or so at best? We didn't start from scratch, we are very very late in the game, and the groundwork for us was laid by millions of other species that can replicate quickly, often very quickly. Unless you believe the Earth is only six thousand years or so old, in which case we might as well leave the discussion where it is.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

TechnicalVault 2y ago

The actual problem is upstream of that at the abiogenesis stage. For evolutionary selection to occur the machinery for selection must exist. Specifically information storage (DNA/RNA), replication(polymerases) and actioning (transcription) all are needed, and must continue to be able to exist for long enough to matter. Without selection pressure and inheritance you're just left with requiring a big enough universe and enough time for randomness not to matter.