Dean Michael Gores write:
How reality works, it is also what I mean when I say the word “evolution”:
1. Atoms exist.
Molecules exist.
I’m right there with you.
Molecules are made of combinations of atoms.
You have a gift for explaining the mysteries of reductionism.
There is a virtually unlimited number of combinations that the virtually infinite number of atoms can be arranged to form molecules.
Is that a fact? I didn’t know that. Would you mind offering some evidence of that? Anyway, you’re wrong about the number of atoms being “virtually infinite.” Best conjectures as to the number of fundamental particles = 10^80. As atoms are composed of fundamental particles, the number of atoms in the universe is less than 10^80. It’s a big number, but it isn’t “virtually infinite.”
2. Some molecules can copy themselves.
We wouldn’t be here if that weren’t true.
One primitive form of copying is lengthening and breaking.
Lengthening and breaking have nothing to do with copying. If something lengthens and breaks and we find that the broken piece is a copy of the original piece, then some other process did the copying first before the lengthening and breaking.
There are other ways molecules are copied.
So far, I know of only one way: it’s called “copying.” To lengthen and break might make two things where we originally had one thing, but there’s no requirement here that the two things be copies of each other.
3. There are occurrences of practically random removal, addition, and switching parts of molecules with other atoms and molecules.
Yes, I believe that’s what happens when we combine hydrogen and oxygen to get water. So far, this is a masterful demonstration of the trite. I remain hopeful, however.
4. Each molecule will be copied or changed in different contexts.
Some changes lead to molecules that are unable to copy (aka death). Averaging over time, a given molecule has a probability of being copied P(copy) and a probability of becoming uncopyable P(death) in a given context.
5. At each moment through time, there will be a set of molecules, and each unique molecule will have a frequency. By unique, I mean they have a different position, but the same atoms, atom locations, and bonds.
6. In a given context, different molecules will be copied/changed at different rates,
This is an example of a classic “hand-waving” argument (“Given a certain unspecific context and unspecified molecules exhibiting unspecified properties -- except that they may be able to copy or they may not be able to copy themselves -- unspecified results will ensue.”).
which arises from their P(copy) and P(death).
“Copy” as you use it means “survives.” So your analysis turns out to mean this:
”In certain contexts, certain molecules will copy themselves and survive; others won’t.” It’s a statement similar in profundity to “A is A.” True but trite.
Molecules with a P(copy)/P(death)>1 will increase in frequency,
By “frequency,” you mean “number.” Yes. Those entities whose ratio of reproduction/death is greater than 1 will increase their numbers.
and molecules with a P(copy)/P(death)<1 will decrease in frequency.
You leave no stone unturned. Your tenacity in examining and re-examining the obvious is admirable.
P(copy)/P(death) corresponds to an expected copy rate.
7. Given 1-6, new and unique molecules are made constantly, each of which will also have a unique expected copy rate in a given context.
9. At each moment through time, molecules of different expected copy rates will continuously change the molecule frequency distribution. Some molecules (and some changes) will flourish, some will survive, and some will not in a given amount of time.
Yes. A utilitarian philosopher in the 19th century had a similar insight regarding people and coined an expression for it: survival of the fittest. Jeremy Bentham coined the expression first; it was later taken over by Darwin. People today like to speak of “social Darwinism,” but since Bentham’s phrase came first, we should really be calling it “biological Benthamism.”
But I digress.
10. Changes compound upon previous changes. Compounded changes are just like the changes in #3, except that they can result in a larger range of expected copy rates.
And maybe they can’t. Why should I accept that “compounded changes” are just like the earlier changes in step #3? The changes could be neutral; the changes could be injurious; the changes could be positive. As it so happens, no randomly produced change forced on living molecules has produced a beneficial change -- ever. When DNA copies itself, it sends out a chemical “proof-reader” to check the integrity of the copy. Occasionally, the proof-reader misses an error (some nucleotide bases are reversed, or one nucleotide base accidentally gets substituted for another nucleotide). In mammals, the rate of copying DNA copying errors is about 1-in-10-billion copies, or 1/10^10. Many horrible diseases are causes by a single accidental nucleotide substitution -- sickle-cell anemia, for example.
None of this proves that a random contribution or change to DNA could not, in theory, produce a new trait or ability in the organism -- either one that’s neutral (e.g., red hair as opposed to brown) or one that’s positive. But it has never been observed, after many decades of experiments with different animals (mainly fruit flies, which breed quickly and are especially susceptible to mutations from radiation). The sorts of changes we see in the fruit fly are mainly negative, with a few neutral ones (i.e., some lucky flies get to be born with an extra leg sticking out of the side of their head. Apparently, normal females find that to be a turn-off and won’t mate with them.)
1-9 applies to compounded changes as well, most notably #6, so some compounded changes can result in very high molecule frequencies.
Translation: Some unspecified compounded changes from unspecified causes in unspecified molecules in “some context” can/may/might/could confer a survival advantage and lead to a higher birth/death ratio, leading to a larger population.
1-10 is how reality works.
Thank you for explaining it to me. I promise I will give all future posts of yours the attention they deserve.
|
