Molecular Evolution

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is Molecular evolution the changes in DNA due to mutation....or does it also include this claim:

DNA is the preeminent extant survivor of a process of evolution within the world of self replicating molecules in which a form of selection operated with increasingly complex long chain molecules proliferating at the expense of shorter chain ones with inferior information encoding ability...?

There is a great deal of evidence and observation of the former...but the latter?

[Enki]

Try looking at the Wiki article on molecular evolution, and especially the section entitled 'origins of new genes'.

[Walter]

Is Molecular evolution the changes in DNA due to mutation....or does it also include this claim:

DNA is the preeminent extant survivor of a process of evolution within the world of self replicating molecules in which a form of selection operated with increasingly complex long chain molecules proliferating at the expense of shorter chain ones with inferior information encoding ability...?

There is a great deal of evidence and observation of the former...but the latter?

Ill tell you what Spoof, I know I don't know enough about this subject to make any meaningful contribution and to keep skipping to Wikki to get information is not my style . therefore I'm off.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ill tell you what Spoof, I know I don't know enough about this subject to make any meaningful contribution and to keep skipping to Wikki to get information is not my style . therefore I'm off.

It's got me thinking though Walt...not against the idea of evolution in a world where there were a range of self replication molecules per se.....but where's the evidence of it since these are chemicals and leave no fossil evidence.

[Walter]

It's got me thinking though Walt...not against the idea of evolution in a world where there were a range of self replication molecules per se.....but where's the evidence of it since these are chemicals and leave no fossil evidence.

they don't need to the evidence is all around us in all living things.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

they don't need to the evidence is all around us in all living things.

I'm afraid there is only DNA and RNA in living things Walt and no evidence of other self replicating molecules...so no evidence of natural selection producing DNA or RNA.

[Walter]

I'm afraid there is only DNA and RNA in living things Walt and no evidence of other self replicating molecules...so no evidence of natural selection producing DNA or RNA.

if you have studied this subject to a high level you should be able to answer your own questions . If not you are on to a looser if you think any of your 'arguments; are in anyway going to prove your fantasy.
Like I said before I'm not qualified to continue. But I do know this, there is no science you can use to prove the existence of your god 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

if you have studied this subject to a high level you should be able to answer your own questions . If not you are on to a looser if you think any of your 'arguments; are in anyway going to prove your fantasy.
Like I said before I'm not qualified to continue. But I do know this, there is no science you can use to prove the existence of your god

Readers of my stuff should know that science doesn't do God anyway. My target here is ultradarwinism where Darwinian principles are applied or assumed where it is not appropriate or evidenced as in this case...and ultradarwinism does do God in it's deliberate attempt to specifically rule God out.

Torridon talks about the darwinian evolution of precursor molecules into RNA as if it were a done deal and there is in fact no evidence for it. That's Bad science.

[jeremyp]

I'm afraid there is only DNA and RNA in living things Walt and no evidence of other self replicating molecules

Ever heard of a prion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ever heard of a prion?

Just wikied them . Very interesting but not an RNA or DNA 'ancestor' or precursor I think. Although I freely admit I was wrong in that they can make copies of themselves and undergo copying errors.

[Jack Knave]

Readers of my stuff should know that science doesn't do God anyway. My target here is ultradarwinism where Darwinian principles are applied or assumed where it is not appropriate or evidenced as in this case...and ultradarwinism does do God in it's deliberate attempt to specifically rule God out.

Torridon talks about the darwinian evolution of precursor molecules into RNA as if it were a done deal and there is in fact no evidence for it. That's Bad science.

Spoof, you have a good point here, but it all comes down to why should atoms and molecules do anything like this at all. What directs them in this way?

[Walter]

Spoof, you have a good point here, but it all comes down to why should atoms and molecules do anything like this at all. What directs them in this way?

mainly opposite electric charges on the dissolved ions forming bonds to eliminate potential differences . (very much  simplified)

[torridon]

Spoof, you have a good point here, but it all comes down to why should atoms and molecules do anything like this at all. What directs them in this way?

Spontaneous self organisation is a common feature of many physical systems, a common example being crystals forming in a cooling solution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

Natural selection within the world of prebiotic carbon molecules is due to the fact that longer chain more complex carbon compounds have greater stability than their simpler short chain precursors, this combined with the promiscuity of carbon leads to a natural  complexity ladder; in a sense it is another example of emergence with higher end emergent properties providing the selection mechanism. 

http://www.livescience.com/18565-life-building-blocks-chemical-evolution.html

[Walter]

Spontaneous self organisation is a common feature of many physical systems, a common example being crystals forming in a cooling solution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

Natural selection within the world of prebiotic carbon molecules is due to the fact that longer chain more complex carbon compounds have greater stability than their simpler short chain precursors, this combined with the promiscuity of carbon leads to a natural  complexity ladder; in a sense it is another example of emergence with higher end emergent properties providing the selection mechanism. 

http://www.livescience.com/18565-life-building-blocks-chemical-evolution.html

Torri

I think a lot of confusion arises in this subject because of the terms used in trying to describe it to the lay person . There seems to be a tendency to anthropomorphise concepts which makes it even worse Sometimes scientists need more competent interpreters.

[Nearly Sane]

Torri

I think a lot of confusion arises in this subject because of the terms used in trying to describe it to the lay person . There seems to be a tendency to anthropomorphise concepts which makes it even worse Sometimes scientists need more competent interpreters.

I think it is more that the easiest way to simplify stuff is by analogy and metaphor, but then people read too much into that e.g. DNA is like a code, is read as DNA is exactly the same as code.


There was once a piece written on Dawkins which described how at his birth all the good fairies were invited to his birth and they gave him talents of intelligence, articulacy and good looks but the bad fairy was not invited and she found it about it. Arriving late, she thought about the other fairies gifts, and gave him the gift of metaphor.

[Walter]

I think it is more that the easiest way to simplify stuff is by analogy and metaphor, but then people read too much into that e.g. DNA is like a code, is read as DNA is exactly the same as code.


There was once a piece written on Dawkins which described how at his birth all the good fairies were invited to his birth and they gave him talents of intelligence, articulacy and good looks but the bad fairy was not invited and she found it about it. Arriving late, she thought about the other fairies gifts, and gave him the gift of metaphor.

so bloody true

[Nearly Sane]

so bloody true

There remains upon readers though a duty to realise what metaphor and analogy do. Dawkins was successful because he could write about the abstruse in an understandable fashion and that he could do that with the ability to coin phrases like the selfish gene is indicative more of the extreme difficulties in communicating unambiguously rather than about him being incompetent. I would say that his skill is a 'double edged sword' but that would illustrate the slipperiness of language, since originally a double edged sword was a good thing if you knew how to use it.

[Walter]

NS

while I'm at it here's another thing that gets me screaming at the telly  ,the misuse of the word theory from journalists to crime dramas and even science programs. I even heard sir Dave do it the other week.
All this does is mislead people to commit the terrible sin of saying 'well, its only a theory'
what the fuck is wrong with them ?
sorry , its meds time.

[torridon]

I think it is more that the easiest way to simplify stuff is by analogy and metaphor, but then people read too much into that e.g. DNA is like a code, is read as DNA is exactly the same as code.

Yes, by nature metaphors have to be simpler than the things they describe, so they have usefulness up to a point; beyond that point they can become obstructive to deeper understanding.  DNA code as a 'blueprint' is a good example.  Another one that often crops up on these boards is brain as hardware, and mind as software that runs on the hardware.  Useful up to a point, but you wouldn't catch neuroscientists running with it.

[Nearly Sane]

NS

while I'm at it here's another thing that gets me screaming at the telly  ,the misuse of the word theory from journalists to crime dramas and even science programs. I even heard sir Dave do it the other week.
All this does is mislead people to commit the terrible sin of saying 'well, its only a theory'
what the fuck is wrong with them ?
sorry , its meds time.

Except theory has different meanings, and most of the uses above I would imagine use the more generalized meaning.
Don't get me started on string theory though.

[Walter]

Except theory has different meanings, and most of the uses above I would imagine use the more generalized meaning.
Don't get me started on string theory though.

don't worry, I won't

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spontaneous self organisation is a common feature of many physical systems, a common example being crystals forming in a cooling solution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

Natural selection within the world of prebiotic carbon molecules is due to the fact that longer chain more complex carbon compounds have greater stability than their simpler short chain precursors, this combined with the promiscuity of carbon leads to a natural  complexity ladder; in a sense it is another example of emergence with higher end emergent properties providing the selection mechanism. 

One wonders why it doesn't continue today then. Surely this should be observable rather than a thing of the past. If carbon 'promiscuity is as you say a factor. How does a chemical reaction become extinct?

[Jack Knave]

mainly opposite electric charges on the dissolved ions forming bonds to eliminate potential differences . (very much  simplified)

This isn't my subject but I think I'm right in saying that these molecules (RNA etc.) have to travel to various destinations to carryout their functions. Relatively these are huge distances. How do they know how to get there and where they are going?

[Walter]

This isn't my subject but I think I'm right in saying that these molecules (RNA etc.) have to travel to various destinations to carryout their functions. Relatively these are huge distances. How do they know how to get there and where they are going?

quick answer
they don't and nowhere specific .

[jeremyp]

Yes, by nature metaphors have to be simpler than the things they describe,

No, they have to be more familiar to the audience.

so they have usefulness up to a point; beyond that point they can become obstructive to deeper understanding.  DNA code as a 'blueprint' is a good example.  Another one that often crops up on these boards is brain as hardware, and mind as software that runs on the hardware.  Useful up to a point, but you wouldn't catch neuroscientists running with it.

I would argue that the blueprint metaphor is simply wrong. A recipe would be a little bit better, but it still suffers if you take it to far.