Sociopath Community

It makes no sense the evolution is a supported theory and yet eugenics “isn’t a thing” 

i think eugenics sadly may really be a thing, but the idea was suppressed in an effort to not give anymore Hitlers of the world any ideas 

-

also I’ve studied evolution at a pretty detailed level (unfortunately forced to cough biology class cough) and a bit of micro and, there are holes in the chain and scientists admit this, it’s known and understood. 

And the micro ties into it because one of the things missing at the micro level of evolution is that fact that... ok so... 

the mRNA supposedly came from “clay” or, deep thermal vents or a fucking meteor cascading down onto earth but even when this perfect formula and this perfect “primordial soup” 4.6bya we still don’t have a missing key protein that is crucial to the development of evolutionary life I’m sure you know about it, it’s called the god protein 

the time constraint is an interesting factor that i hadn’t considered though, but the truth is, carbon dating could be inaccurate and, thus we may not really know how old the earth is. 

It’s like, so you’re saying there is or iSN’T genetic superiority which one IS IT dude

And then we have people saying oh shit we need genetic variation so the human race sustains itself on a larger scale 

and then some people are saying that are gene pool is slowly degrading its like 

okay so we’re thriving and not thriving at the same time by furthering the human race so are we fucked either way 

Pls explain 

Blanc said: 

It makes no sense the evolution is a supported theory and yet eugenics “isn’t a thing” 

i think eugenics sadly may really be a thing, but the idea was suppressed in an effort to not give anymore Hitlers of the world any ideas 

It used to be widely accepted idea in academia and politics pre-WW2, it does seem to be having a come back. You have crispr-cas9, TALENS, ZFNs, and other gene editing tools; and there’s very real conversation on how to deploy them ethically so academia and culture as whole seems at the least open to the idea. There’s neurolink along with other CBI’s being worked on by private companies that state they are only 5 years out from actual human implementation, and 20 years away from full scale revolution singularity type shit. Plus there’s the whole biohacking movement -  many of its members actually experiment on themselves.

It’s hard to say where things will be in a few decades.

-

also I’ve studied evolution at a pretty detailed level (unfortunately forced to cough biology class cough) and a bit of micro and, there are holes in the chain and scientists admit this, it’s known and understood. 

I think the biological community, at least the microbiologists and geneticists, have been humbled quite a bit since the 80’s. They’ve made breakthroughs, so as a research program they are on to something, but the ‘holes’ are more like canyons – the evolutionary biologists on the other hands have been sitting on a dead program since they started as they are no closer to explaining the origin of species in a rigorous and predictive way than Darwin was.

I see a lot of hope in the field of microbiology now that Mathematicians, Physicists, and Computer Scientists are becoming more and more interested in biological questions. Biological theories have lacked a lot of the rigor other sciences enjoy. If we can perhaps build a comprehensive theory built around information I think models will vastly improve.

And the micro ties into it because one of the things missing at the micro level of evolution is that fact that... ok so... 

the mRNA supposedly came from “clay” or, deep thermal vents or a fucking meteor cascading down onto earth but even when this perfect formula and this perfect “primordial soup” 4.6bya we still don’t have a missing key protein that is crucial to the development of evolutionary life I’m sure you know about it, it’s called the god protein 

Yes, this question always disturbed Godel and Popper. In the body crucial proteins are coded for and then synthesized but simultaneously proteins are necessary in the synthesis of proteins – it begs the question where the first functional protein came from.

As you have stated there are many explanations for how this happened but a rigorous theory are not built on explanations alone.

Once of the disturbing occurrences, and Darwin himself thought it problematic for his own theory if not rectified, is the Cambrian explosion. You have a period lasting somewhere between 13-75 million years in which nearly all animal phyla pop up in the fossil record. Classical and neo-Darwinism make a simple predictive claim, that evolution is a gradual and continuous process, and yet observationally the fossil record does not explicitly support that claim. There could be explanations for this but I’d like to think if on May 29 1919 if stars thought to behind the sun were not visible during the solar eclipse explanations alone would not have saved Einstein’s theory.

the time constraint is an interesting factor that i hadn’t considered though, but the truth is, carbon dating could be inaccurate and, thus we may not really know how old the earth is. 

 From what I understand carbon dating is pretty accurate though I do recall some contentious theory by Dirac, but he was evidently proven wrong. I’m very hazy on the history through.

Blanc said: 

And then we have people saying oh shit we need genetic variation so the human race sustains itself on a larger scale 

 

and then some people are saying that are gene pool is slowly degrading its like 

 

okay so we’re thriving and not thriving at the same time by furthering the human race so are we fucked either way 

 

Pls explain 

 I think were doing OK.

Genetic superiority/degrading are all charged terms, superior or degraded compared to what?

Major Major said: 

Incapable of critical thinking...? Shut up whore.

It’s okay, you’re starting to get it.

Your answer to the first point is satisfactory... although i doubt anyone here is willing to wade through all that shit. You could have convinced me by just saying that they introduce wholly random changes (with equal weights) to DNA and see if it produces stable or non-stable proteins... and that it's equivalent to evolution, because evolution also produces wholly random changes to DNA. Is that right?

Approximately, you have the basic idea. 

You wanted me to teach you a lesson... The first lesson is that you should stick to the point instead of side-railing to some unrelated BS for 5 posts.

I overestimated your reading level, it won’t happen again.

So to get this right...

1. Evolution produces completely random changes to DNA

Evolution is caused by random mutations during DNA replication, mitosis, and meiosis.

I know you dislike Jargon. I am merely saying that mistake doesn't always pop up in the DNA, can occur elsewhere. 

2. The probability that those random changes produce stable proteins is ~zero according to your citation

Essentially.

3. So evolution theory through natural selection must be insufficient to explain how proteins evolved

Evolution through random mutation is insufficient to explain the origins and evolution of proteins (and as consequence the complexity of biological systems we see in the world)

..?

But yeah, that's more or less it. 

And the evolution theory says that the changes are completely random right? Do you have a reference for that?

It is standard to think they are random, but obviously there are decenters (I think more and more actually) and very niche theories that say otherwise. Regardless, if you go to university you will learn that they are random and that will be solidified during your entire time studying. And, as I’ve stated in previous responses mutations are not equal probable, that depends on protein length/complexity and where in the process the mutation is occurring.

Mutations are Random 

Mutations

By the way... you keep repeating "neo-darwinism"... do you mean the modern theory of evolution or some BS that existed when Darwin was alive? So you believe something is wrong with the current theory of evolution, or with some unrelated strawman?

Neo-Darwinism is the standard modern theory of evolution. It is a combination of Darwins ideas pertaining to natural selection and the theory of genetics. There are different flavors but all the fundamental axioms are pretty much the same.

HAHAHAAHA, love when the insults start

Interesting that you say that the mutations are random, when it took me 5 minutes of googling to find that there exists apparently mutational hotspots supported by a lot of data.

So.. how did you rule out the following possibilities

1. Mutational hotspots
2. Mutations combined with DNA recombination (and other means of adaptive changes to the DNA) which can be selective (not random), as I understand
3. The possibility that DNA arranges, through aeons of selection, in such a way that random mutations tend to cause beneficiel changes. I.e., emergent phenomena. There's even some evidence of this happening in some species that seem to save up mutations for a "rainy day".

As far as I understand, you took none of these into account in your analysis... how did you rule them all out? They're consistent with the current evolution theory..

but can't be simulated by simple random DNA changes as in your citation.

Major Major said: 

Interesting that you say that the mutations are random, when it took me 5 minutes of googling to find that there exists apparently mutational hotspots supported by a lot of data.

So.. how did you rule out the following possibilities

1. Mutational hotspots

I find mutation bias very interesting and actually have hopes to see it built more adequately into evolutionary theory because you are correct it at the least plays a role. Unfortunately it's largely ignored in models outside of cancer research. 

Luckily I personally did not have to deal with it because Axes built it into his model. He has taken a specific type of gene, which is a snippet of code in a DNA sequence, and induced randomized mutations to the sequence. In doing so he has effectively turned that gene into a mutation hotspot. 

Having said this I would agree there's a necessity to understand the frequency of hotspots, and this is something I have not covered. Not only does frequency need to be known but so too does the outcome of the hotspots. Hotspots often lead to cancer which kill the organism and as such they don't get to pass off their genes. Perhaps this is the reason evolutionary biologists don't build it into their models, most hotspots lead to dead ends. 

1. Mutations combined with DNA recombination and/or transduction, transformation, or conjugation which are selective and not random, as I understand

These are not mutations, they are transfers of DNA. In this case an initial mutation must be had for the bacterium to share it with the others, hence there is a start to the novel gene that is being transferred. This has less to do with how a novel trait arises and more to do with how quickly a novel trait can spread throughout a population. For bacterium the answer is quickly, for larger organism it doesn't play a big role. 

I am dealing with the how novel traits first enter a population. 

1. The possibility that DNA arranges, through selection, in such a way that random mutations tend to cause beneficiel changes. I.e., emergent phenomena. There's even some evidence of this happening in some species that seem to save up mutations for a "rainy day".

Are you talking about gene expression and regulation? 

If so that is not mutation and no novel traits arise.

As far as I understand, you took none of these into account in your analysis... So how did you rule them all out?

 Recap

(1) is inherently built into Axes model

(2) Is not mutation but would play a role on population dynamics (I'll think about the latter)

(3) Is not mutation 

That's all very interesting to think about though, so thanks. I'm very interested in constructing a lite information based theory. Horizontal gene transfer might be a great starting point because there's a mass transfer of information through a population and you don't have to deal with all the problems that arise when building mutations into your model. 

This is very interesting. I'm going to look into it, thanks for sharing!!

If the first point is neglected and plays a role, then doesn't that mean that your conclusion is unwarranted because you assume random changes to DNA..? I have no idea what Axes model is or how that relates to the study you used to determine the probability of proteins evolving.

Who knows how complicated the interplay becomes when you add natural selection and other evolutionary forces into play. It's no longer a simple random number problem. One factor can feedback back into the other... Over aeons...

Anyway..

2. https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-mutation-and-vs-recombination/

Why can't recombination play a role, when it seemingly plays a role in almost all standard evolutionary processes? If it can result in a novel set of genetic information, then why is it not important?

And yes, it plays a role in population dynamics. How did you rule that out? I understand that you're talking about a novel property arising, but I can imagine that happening even just through re-shuffling of the genome, forget even the novel traits for a second... because then the macroscopic properties of DNA are different and the microscopic interactions (random mutations) can differ in their feedback to the macroscopic properties.

3. "The possibility that DNA arranges, through selection, in such a way that random mutations tend to cause beneficiel changes. I.e., emergent phenomena. There's even some evidence of this happening in some species that seem to save up mutations for a "rainy day". "

I don't know what gene regulation or expression is.... Can you speak clearly. I'm talking about how DNA is arranged and how it reacts to microscopic changes.

Let me make some random shit up to demonstrate.. Imagine a strand of DNA is

AAAABCBDAAA

or

ABDAABDBEBA

If you randomly change one of the letters in that chain, imagine the first one has 500 possible macroscopic arrangements such that the change leads to a beneficial trait... The second one has 1. Clearly the first arrangement is then favored.

Imagine that selection tends towards such arrangements that mutations lead to beneficial traits at a higher chance...but you're not taking selection into account.

This is just a simple example... it becomes infinitely more complicated once you take all the other evolutionary forces and agents, and let them feedback on each other at every level.

So how did you rule out selection that creates DNA arrangements which favor beneficial mutations, when there's some evidence that this happens in nature?