tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post110852514712438330..comments2024-01-13T18:57:18.243-05:00Comments on Information Processing: Evolutionary timescalesSteve Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1108688739635178152005-02-17T20:05:00.000-05:002005-02-17T20:05:00.000-05:00Carson Chow:
I'm not sure what you mean by smooth...Carson Chow:<br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by smooth. However, on that thought, if you only look at the genome and followed the phylogenetic tree, my bet is that the transition from species to species looks much more seamless at the genome level. We'll only know for sure when we sequence many more organisms. Thus speciation per se may not be as fundamental a process as is commonly Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1108612000306453152005-02-16T22:46:00.000-05:002005-02-16T22:46:00.000-05:00Hi Anne,
No one knows how to make the estimate bu...Hi Anne,<br /><br />No one knows how to make the estimate but if one were made, constraints from molecular biology such as the average mutation rate must be included.<br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by smooth. However, on that thought, if you only look at the genome and followed the phylogenetic tree, my bet is that the transition from species to species looks much more seamless at the Carson C. Chowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08464737817585277975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1108606218983750662005-02-16T21:10:00.000-05:002005-02-16T21:10:00.000-05:00I must think about Carson's interesting comment ca...I must think about Carson's interesting comment carefully. But, why should evolution be "smooth?" What am I missing, Carson?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1108605859898292582005-02-16T21:04:00.000-05:002005-02-16T21:04:00.000-05:00"The bottom line is that you cannot separate molec..."The bottom line is that you cannot separate molecular biology from natural selection if you wanted to make such an estimate."<br /><br />But, how would this lead to a proper estimate?<br /><br />AnneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1108603660153223702005-02-16T20:27:00.000-05:002005-02-16T20:27:00.000-05:00You can be even more precise. We know the mutatio...You can be even more precise. We know the mutation rates of DNA so we can calculate how long it would take say a bacteria to adapt to a change in the environment like the appearance of a toxin like oxygen. If you do a simple minded calculation you find that there is not enough time if say three mutations are required to adapt for an averaged sized colony (that's why the triple AIDS cocktail Carson C. Chowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08464737817585277975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1108594981508182092005-02-16T18:03:00.000-05:002005-02-16T18:03:00.000-05:00Ah. There is the reason you are puzzling. Then t...Ah. There is the reason you are puzzling. Then there must be consideration of the distinct nature of biology in which evolution of organisms can not be experimentally duplicated while another way round is found to add to our understanding of the mechanisms and path.<br /><br />AnneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1108586977534980772005-02-16T15:49:00.000-05:002005-02-16T15:49:00.000-05:00Anne: the hypothesis we would like to disprove is ...Anne: the hypothesis we would like to disprove is that there is something beyond natural selection at work (an "invisible hand"). If the hypothesis were correct, then Mayr's hard-won intuition would be way off, as he would be seeing the results of the invisible hand, rather than natural selection. This is a quantitative question, so Mayr telling me something like "I've looked at a lot of snails, Steve Hsuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1108574729334584532005-02-16T12:25:00.000-05:002005-02-16T12:25:00.000-05:00You are correct, that is the best claim a creation...You are correct, that is the best claim a creationist or Intelligent Design aficionado could make. (And most of them have not even done that well.)<br /><br />But hey, even if someone came up with a compelling argument that, statistically, something like 10^100 years would be required, you could just invoke the string theory "landscape" of vacua and the anthropic principle to smooth all that Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1108571997342252952005-02-16T11:39:00.001-05:002005-02-16T11:39:00.001-05:00Well, biology is a beginning :)
AnneWell, biology is a beginning :)<br /><br />AnneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1108571970019234392005-02-16T11:39:00.000-05:002005-02-16T11:39:00.000-05:00Since you are taking requests :), there are the ar...Since you are taking requests :), there are the arts. There really are.<br /><br />AnneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1108571881111925002005-02-16T11:38:00.000-05:002005-02-16T11:38:00.000-05:00There was a time I could have written to Ernst May...There was a time I could have written to Ernst Mayr and asked; no more. I suspect the answer may rest in understanding the evolution acts not on a molecular or cellular level, but on the organism. So, evolution is faster than a physicist or chemist might so carefully anticipate. But, I will read and think and ask and possibly there will be an answer in time :)<br /><br />AnneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com