When will be the next big leap foreward?

[AJ_2010]

I was watching a HORIZON program on the BBC a few days ago about big bang theory and how the old notion of there being a singularity that exploded with no consideration of time before that, and how this is now being torn apart by new theories etc.

But my question is about when do you guys think the next real leap forward will be in physics and science knowledge as a whole?

Are we missing a single piece of maths that will open doors or missing some specific decive that we need to measure something important?
Will the HADRON collider and the possible evidence of the Higgs Boson prove to be the key?


It seems to me these days that science progression has levelled out and is waiting for some new 'thing' to happen. (Or maybe its because I've not been paying much attention to detail over the past number of years since leaving uni) ;)

 

[granpa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity#Intelligence_explosion

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

In the past 15 years, the "thing" seems to have been communications, especially wireless and optical. And since 5 years, any technology that is "green".

I'm in neither field directly but I still feel bombarded by related news.

In astrophysics, exo-planets seem to have been in vogue.

And graphene of course is currently an exploding area in material science.

Also, the use of carbon fiber has increases tremendously in the past 10 years.

As for more science-related stuff (vs tech), well yeah, watch out for the LHC. The NIF is also on the verge of doing interesting stuff.

 

[Danger]

But my question is about when do you guys think the next real leap forward will be in physics and science knowledge as a whole?

It occurred 17 years ago, but nobody noticed.

 

[georgir]

I think brain-computer interfaces are the next big thing, once they stop being viewed as just a kink for playing computer games and their use for communication gets so widespread and seamless that they're in fact brain-brain interfaces. They will eventually lead to a new "language" for communicating between ourselves that is orders of magnitude more efficient, accurate and expressive than current forms. And then, because we learn to think in parallel and in close relation to learning to communicate, a new level of thought and intelligence. Kids growing up with "telepathy" implants from infants will surpass today's geniuses while still in kinder garden. Maybe even some form of group consciousness can occur. It will be a complete new step in human evolution, although technologically driven.

 

[Danger]

BORG ALERT... BORG ALERT!
Georgir is promoting Borgism! That's like Communism, but with cool implants. Don't fall into his trap!

Actually, I agree. Brain/computer interface has been postulated and depicted in fiction for decades, but it is now very close to everyday reality. Once readily available, it will indeed change the foundations of civilization. For one thing, instantaneous translation (ala Star Trek) will be commonplace and will help to tear down cultural barriers.

 

[granpa]

resistance is futile

 

[Danger]

resistance is futile

...but makes for some good pyrotechnics...

 

[kramer733]

It occurred 17 years ago, but nobody noticed.

So what occurred 17 years ago?

As for explosion in technology, i don't have credentials to say. But i'd like to guess it will be in another 60 years.

 

[Barwick]

When? I think it'll happen when scientists start throwing out their false presuppositions that they're trying to rectify current observations back to.

Basically, scientists make assumptions about things they do not know, do not understand, and in some cases, cannot know. These assumptions give rise to presuppositions about the world around them, many of which prove to be false presuppositions.

For example: Scientists presuppose that a particle known as the photon exists, and it acts as both a particle and a wave. It may in fact be proven that light is simply a wave, acting as a quasi-plane wave.

Another example: Scientists presume that the Earth and the universe is billions of years old, despite equally weighty and compelling evidence to the contrary. If Creation Scientists are right in their belief that the Earth is 10,000 years old, then scientists that hold to the billions of years theory are literally off by a factor of 500,000. That would *greatly* change the conclusions drawn from observations we see today.

What I'm trying to say is, most scientists today spend a great deal of their time trying to prove their presuppositions right, instead of looking at the objective evidence right in front of them. It happens on all sides of every argument, but the ones that put aside their presuppositions and are willing to be wrong in order to be right in the long run, will make great leaps.

 

[kramer733]

So what should scientists concentrate their studies on now? What subject should scientists concentrate into yield the greatest returns in terms of technology?

 

[Barwick]

I'm not psychic so I can't say, but I think any area is equally ripe for scientific advancement. Specifically ones that can provide near-term financial benefit, because if you can do that, you can pay for more of the theoretical stuff that will pay dividends decades from now.

 

[AJ_2010]

So, with the brain-computer interfaces, will that likely take the format of shared thought and maybe take every 'plugged-in' human to increase their brain capacity by using the output of other's?

I know that only a small percentage of the brain is used for computation and active thought and the like. Being able to add in the power of many other brains could lead to a vast expansion in knowledge and understanding.

Is this how it is expected to pan out?

Or are we talking about the use of a computer chip to 'add' to the human brain power (independant of other human connection)?
Again, this is an interesting concept. Totally no idea how it will connect or work but it opens doors to many possibilities.

 

[Evo]

I know that only a small percentage of the brain is used for computation and active thought and the like.

Adding to that mystery is the contention that humans "only" employ 10 percent of their brain. If only regular folk could tap that other 90 percent, they too could become savants who remember π to the twenty-thousandth decimal place or perhaps even have telekinetic powers.

Though an alluring idea, the "10 percent myth" is so wrong it is almost laughable, says neurologist Barry Gordon at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore.

Although it's true that at any given moment all of the brain's regions are not concurrently firing, brain researchers using imaging technology have shown that, like the body's muscles, most are continually active over a 24-hour period. "Evidence would show over a day you use 100 percent of the brain," says John Henley, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=people-only-use-10-percent-of-brain

 

[G037H3]

the human brain is so resource-hungry

it wouldn't be rational for it to work at less than its full capacity

considering that 20%-30% of your food and oxygen feed it, it's a huge evolutionary pressure

 

[Upisoft]

the human brain is so resource-hungry

it wouldn't be rational for it to work at less than its full capacity

considering that 20%-30% of your food and oxygen feed it, it's a huge evolutionary pressure

Intelligence is the evolutionary barrier. We adapt nature instead nature adapting us. Well, there is still some evolution in progress, mainly in so called 3rd world countries where genetic screening is not available.

If it isn't rational to use less than full capacity of your brain then use it. Stop sleeping.

 

[Upisoft]

I'm expecting next big leap to be done by data generated by LHC. (or maybe lack of data)

 

[AJ_2010]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=people-only-use-10-percent-of-brain

This is suggesting that 'over the course of a day' that 100% brain power is used...but not on individual tasks.
Or am I wrong (again)?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The next big leap forward will come on Dec. 22, 2012. It will be a big aha moment for millions of people.

 

[Barwick]

The next big leap forward will come on Dec. 22, 2012. It will be a big aha moment for millions of people.

Well while we're throwing out dates... the next big leap forward will come on Nov 2, 2010

After that, the next big leap will come on Nov 6, 2012, and subsequently January 20th, 2013.

And now, for another presupposition:

Intelligence is the evolutionary barrier. We adapt nature instead nature adapting us. Well, there is still some evolution in progress, mainly in so called 3rd world countries where genetic screening is not available.

Scientists base their studies on the presupposition that evolution is happening, and/or that it happened. Namely, new beneficial information being added to the genetic pool that was never there before, creating more complex systems that on their own have no benefit, but as a complete system suddenly have a useful benefit.

It is all well and good to base on the presupposition of change within one's own kind (squirrels in one area being brown, and in other areas being black, despite the same genetic makeup), that has been observed and is scientifically verifiable. But the addition of new genetic material to the gene pool has never been observed; and in reality, the exact opposite is observed to be taking place, namely that information and complex systems over time tend to simplify (languages are an easy to see example).

The addition of new genetic material in the past can only be inferred by a complex system of other presuppositions about layered strata, fossil dating, etc, which in turn are based on the presupposition about the age of said strata, etc.

What I'm getting at is, there's a lot of presuppositions in there that if they were let go, some real progress could be made.

 

[Upisoft]

Scientists base their studies on the presupposition that evolution is happening, and/or that it happened. Namely, new beneficial information being added to the genetic pool that was never there before, creating more complex systems that on their own have no benefit, but as a complete system suddenly have a useful benefit.

And I assume that your presupposition is it cannot happen, right?

It is all well and good to base on the presupposition of change within one's own kind (squirrels in one area being brown, and in other areas being black, despite the same genetic makeup), that has been observed and is scientifically verifiable. But the addition of new genetic material to the gene pool has never been observed;

Wrong. Some bacteria have developed resistance to some drugs encoded in their genetic material. Anyway we are observing DNA only for the last 40 years. And even in that time we are still perfecting the techniques for DNA sequencing. It is a lifetime period for a human, you cannot expect to observe evolution within the lifetime of a person. The bacteria however have much higher rate of reproduction.

and in reality, the exact opposite is observed to be taking place, namely that information and complex systems over time tend to simplify (languages are an easy to see example).

So, you were born, then you simplified to what you are now. I don't know if I agree or disagree with that. Explain.

The addition of new genetic material in the past can only be inferred by a complex system of other presuppositions about layered strata, fossil dating, etc, which in turn are based on the presupposition about the age of said strata, etc.

What I'm getting at is, there's a lot of presuppositions in there that if they were let go, some real progress could be made.

How do you propose to make some real progress? You already "proved" that is impossible. It is necessity that we as complex information systems will tend to degrade with time, isn't it? So embrace your degradation and stop calling for impossible.

 

[Blenton]

The next big leap forward will come on Dec. 22, 2012. It will be a big aha moment for millions of people.

What, when the LHC is finally run at full power?

 

[Upisoft]

What, when the LHC is finally run at full power?

You are talking about that big demon summoning circle? Don't worry it is not pentagram, it will not work.

 

[Barwick]

And I assume that your presupposition is it cannot happen, right?

Not that it cannot happen, but that it does not account for what we see, and that it is incredibly unlikely, statistically, to happen. Especially when considering complex systems whose component parts have no benefit on their own, but together have a vast benefit. The likelihood of the component parts spontaneously being generated are low (to throw out a random number, let's just say 1 in 10^15 reproductions, it's likely much higher than that). if there were only 15 of those component parts required, all of which serve no benefit on their own (and therefore wouldn't be preserved by natural selection), we're talking on the order of 1 in 10^240 chance of that happening.

So, that's my personal belief based on evidence I've seen.

Could new evidence show that random beneficial genetic mutations like the one above are possible? It's possible, but I haven't seen it, at least not without some convoluted reasoning to arrive at that conclusion.

Wrong. Some bacteria have developed resistance to some drugs encoded in their genetic material. Anyway we are observing DNA only for the last 40 years. And even in that time we are still perfecting the techniques for DNA sequencing. It is a lifetime period for a human, you cannot expect to observe evolution within the lifetime of a person. The bacteria however have much higher rate of reproduction.

The resistance to bacteria was already present in their genetic material, and a simple modification of the expression or arrangement of that material produced the desired effect. Almost always, drug resistance results in a weaker (albiet still alive in a hostile environment) bacteria.

So, you were born, then you simplified to what you are now. I don't know if I agree or disagree with that. Explain.

Just that the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that complex systems over time tend to degrade into more simple systems and closer towards chaos. Unless intelligently directed energy is put into arrange it, those systems tend to degrade. Hence why my house doesn't naturally stay clean, there's not the right kind of intelligence in our four little kids to keep the place looking spotless.

How do you propose to make some real progress? You already "proved" that is impossible. It is necessity that we as complex information systems will tend to degrade with time, isn't it? So embrace your degradation and stop calling for impossible.

I didn't prove progress is impossible, I simply stated that scientists clinging to their "I know evolution is true, and the Earth is billions of years old" is holding them back from making discoveries that are contrary to their presuppositions. They are refusing to use their intelligence (which is the key to increased order) to make those advances because it contradicts their emotional presuppositions.

 

[Upisoft]

Not that it cannot happen, but that it does not account for what we see, and that it is incredibly unlikely, statistically, to happen.

So, you have the collected statistical data. Please quote the source. Throwing random numbers isn't helping.

The resistance to bacteria was already present in their genetic material, and a simple modification of the expression or arrangement of that material produced the desired effect. Almost always, drug resistance results in a weaker (albiet still alive in a hostile environment) bacteria.

Well, there you are. Simple modification = huge effect. You said it.
Also you described well the natural selection process. These weaker, but still alive bacteria survived. Also, where is the intelligent design here? We created the drug with exactly opposite idea - to kill the bacteria. The unexpected by you behavior was that it have adapted.

Just that the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that complex systems over time tend to degrade into more simple systems and closer towards chaos. Unless intelligently directed energy is put into arrange it, those systems tend to degrade.

Quite an addition to the science. The class has a question though. What is the intelligent entity in the crystal making business. After all, the crystals do not organize by themselves, do they?
BTW, you missed the word "isolated" or "closed" systems.

I didn't prove progress is impossible, I simply stated that scientists clinging to their "I know evolution is true, and the Earth is billions of years old" is holding them back from making discoveries that are contrary to their presuppositions. They are refusing to use their intelligence (which is the key to increased order) to make those advances because it contradicts their emotional presuppositions.

Speaking about presuppositions.

 

[jambaugh]

Here are some possible revolutions:

* An as yet unknown new paradigm for the quantum gravity problem?

* Bussard's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell" (if it works) real clean abundant power!

* http://www.celltechpower.com/technology.htm" (LTA-SOFC) Potentially able to produce electricity from any fuel (coal, oil, LP * natural gas, sawdust, lawn trimmings, etc) more efficiently than high pressure steam turbines. Real distributed power generation (getting rid of "the grid"!).

* Genome project based http://www.microsoft.eu/Futures/Viewer/tabid/64/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/297/The-virtual-physiological-human-The-search-for-computings-supermodel.aspx" . I'm not sure how practical but potentially this would provide super precise medical diagnostics, drug design, and custom treatments for diseases.

* Related to the last, and probably occurring on the way: Computer modeling of organisms, enabling custom genetic engineering of agricultural and bio-industrial organisms, modeling of pathogens, e.g. a way to wipe out malaria would save millions of lives. Imagine programmable ants capable of sorting recyclables while eating the waste organics. Imagine precision customization of yeasts producing nutritionally complete food, or drugs or industrial chemical feedstocks.

* http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond_pr.html" .

* Super "batteries"? Would be great but I don't see any quantum leaps. We have however seen steady slow improvements.

* Stem cell research- growing new whole organs and tissue from the patient's own stem cells would be a dramatic breakthrough.

* A new economics paradigm?

> I do not see quantum computing as producing a major paradigm change. I see this as an academic subject capable of advising classic computing problems. (But a worthy subject of research.)

> "Nanotech" is a broad category and I don't see micromachines cleaning out our arteries anytime in the near future but we have seen behind the scenes nano-scale materials technology enabling customized material properties.

 

[Barwick]

So, you have the collected statistical data. Please quote the source. Throwing random numbers isn't helping.

On average, mutations occur once every 10 million duplications of DNA, or 1E7 (ref: Paul S. Moorhead, Martin M. Kaplan; Wistar Institute Symposium; Science Vol. 160. no. 3826, p. 408, 1967).

That's for *any* mutation to take place (beneficial, harmful, or neutral).

I can't offhand find my source for the rate of beneficial vs harmful mutations, and the both of those vs neutral (which comprise the vast majority of mutations by many orders of magnitude). A few sites said anywhere from as high as 1 in 150 mutations are beneficial vs harmful, to as low as 1 in thousands or millions. Let's go with 1 in 150 being either harmful or beneficial. Now figure out how many are neutral (thousands of times more than the # of beneficial/harmful ones), and we've got another 1 in 1E9 or so, leaving us with a probability of beneficial mutation of 1 in 1E16 or so.

Now, let's just assume a 5 part system, all of which must be developed in the same organism, or successive organisms, despite there not being any natural selection benefit to doing so. Suddenly you have a 1 in 1E80 chance of that 5 part system (which is actually very very simple as far as life systems in an organism go) arising by chance.

Well, there you are. Simple modification = huge effect. You said it.
Also you described well the natural selection process. These weaker, but still alive bacteria survived. Also, where is the intelligent design here? We created the drug with exactly opposite idea - to kill the bacteria. The unexpected by you behavior was that it have adapted.

Exactly my point, it was a modification of information that was *already present*. No new information was created.

Quite an addition to the science. The class has a question though. What is the intelligent entity in the crystal making business. After all, the crystals do not organize by themselves, do they?
BTW, you missed the word "isolated" or "closed" systems.

If you want my opinion on that, crystals form that way because it's efficient for them to do so. That is, it's basically the equivalent of their "resonant frequency". It is the state of highest order created by the lowest amount of energy input.

It would be akin to asking why is the sky uniformly blue, instead of having patches of different colors? It's because of the dimensions of the nitrogen in the atmosphere causing that particular frequency to be scattered more than others. It's an inherent property.

Similarly, you could ask why does XYZ element absorb 62nm, 982nm, and 442nm frequencies well, while ABC element absorbs 874nm, 554nm, 654nm, 988nm, and 121nm well... It's got to do with their inherent properties. Heck, if you think of fractals even, and apply that to atomic structure... their protons and neutrons are structured in such a way that they would act as a great antenna at certain frequencies, and a poor antenna at others.

Speaking about presuppositions.

You don't believe directed intelligence toward a goal is the fastest path to increased order? Simple observation would prove that... Try writing a book, and then try putting 100,000 monkeys in a room and wait for a readable book to come out, and tell me which took longer, and which is a better book.

 

[Barwick]

Here are some possible revolutions:

* An as yet unknown new paradigm for the quantum gravity problem?

Check out Xavier Borg's stuff on that topic:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-intro.asp

* Bussard's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell" (if it works) real clean abundant power!

I've been following this for some time, it would be excellent.

* http://www.celltechpower.com/technology.htm" (LTA-SOFC) Potentially able to produce electricity from any fuel (coal, oil, LP * natural gas, sawdust, lawn trimmings, etc) more efficiently than high pressure steam turbines. Real distributed power generation (getting rid of "the grid"!).

You're going to keep me busy looking up these things for a long time aren't you? Some neat stuff...

* Genome project based http://www.microsoft.eu/Futures/Viewer/tabid/64/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/297/The-virtual-physiological-human-The-search-for-computings-supermodel.aspx" . I'm not sure how practical but potentially this would provide super precise medical diagnostics, drug design, and custom treatments for diseases.

* Related to the last, and probably occurring on the way: Computer modeling of organisms, enabling custom genetic engineering of agricultural and bio-industrial organisms, modeling of pathogens, e.g. a way to wipe out malaria would save millions of lives. Imagine programmable ants capable of sorting recyclables while eating the waste organics. Imagine precision customization of yeasts producing nutritionally complete food, or drugs or industrial chemical feedstocks.

I don't know that I'd trust #2 here, at least in the near future. The understanding of the processes in the human body is seriously lacking. Heck, mainstream science is just figuring out that Omega 3 is good for us, and solves a LOT of problems we've been seeing... and despite that they're only advocating 1-2 grams per day, when we should be consuming 20-30 grams per day or more. Just saying they're a long ways off there, but you're right it'd be cool the possibilities.

* http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond_pr.html" .

* Super "batteries"? Would be great but I don't see any quantum leaps. We have however seen steady slow improvements.

* Stem cell research- growing new whole organs and tissue from the patient's own stem cells would be a dramatic breakthrough.

Back in 2007, we've had 73 treatments as the result of Adult Stem Cell treatment. It's a very promising field. I don't know what that number is today. I do know that the very first treatment based on embryonic stem cells has finally started, and it isn't looking good. So much for the embryonic stem cell hype... so far the score is Adult Stem Cells 73+, Embryonic 0.

This is a very very promising area.

* A new economics paradigm?

Marx and Engels tried that, a paradigm designed on the theory that human beings could be perfected. It failed miserably, and caused the deaths of well over 100 million people in trying to implement it. I'll take our voluntary system of prices and free competition over a man-designed system any day.

 

[Evo]

This is suggesting that 'over the course of a day' that 100% brain power is used...but not on individual tasks.
Or am I wrong (again)?

If you used 100% of your brain on a single task, you'd die.

 

[ThomasEdison]

So what should scientists concentrate their studies on now? What subject should scientists concentrate into yield the greatest returns in terms of technology?

My 2cents in order of importance.

1. Material Sciences : Particularly CNT. In my opinion CNT advances represent an entirely new way of looking at materials. It's about as amazing as plastics and nylon were for their times. Look around you and subtract everything in your room that contains even one tiny part plastic or nylon.
Material advances are THE major catalyst for change for human society. This is why many historical epochs are labeled "Bronze age", "Iron age" etc. Well we are on the cusp of another one of these shifts involving CNT.
I say catalyst because advances in material sciences help just about every other field in science and I mention CNT because it is the most exciting new material since plastics.
Plastic may have a bad reputation (because it is a synthetic substance) but try to imagine a world without it.

2. Computers: Computers and materials sciences go hand in hand but this is another catalyst technology. Ill say again I use that word (catalyst) because better cheaper and more advanced computation helps every other field of science grow.

3. Extra-solar planets : While this may not be a catalyst for all human advancement as such right now there is a gamble in the search for life outside Earth. If we do find it there's a huge pay off. If we can prove that it exists elsewhere (and I see no better way than to keep searching for Extra solar worlds and examining them) then I think there would be a huge ideology shift here on Earth. I don't know which way it would take us but trust me : major change. A person might be skeptical to say that these ideological shifts mean nothing. Some others in the past : discovery of fire, the first telegraph sent, the first brick kilned.. etc.


These are the three I most expect to see a game changing shift in my lifetime. I would hope that the people in these fields doing valid work get the right funding to continue.

 

[Upisoft]

On average, mutations occur once every 10 million duplications of DNA, or 1E7 (ref: Paul S. Moorhead, Martin M. Kaplan; Wistar Institute Symposium; Science Vol. 160. no. 3826, p. 408, 1967).

We are doing DNA sequencing since 1970 and you cite source before that time? It's time for you to learn what happened in science since 1967.

Anyway the question of this thread is about future. And now I think that the next big leap will be when people will stop using outdated information.

 

[Upisoft]

Exactly my point, it was a modification of information that was *already present*. No new information was created.

Yes, of course. Painting is just changing the color that already existed, nothing new was created.

What you typed is just change in the color of some pixels on my screen. I very much agree that I see no new information there.

 

[Astronuc]

February 29, 2012

 

[AJ_2010]

I see there is a science vs religion discussion going on in my thread.

As I am firmly on the science side of the debate I will continue to watch as the religion elements are continually shot down in flames. :)

 

[Barwick]

I see there is a science vs religion discussion going on in my thread.

As I am firmly on the science side of the debate I will continue to watch as the religion elements are continually shot down in flames. :)

HA! You're hilarious. This is exactly what I am talking about... "Since I believe this, I'm going to watch and ignore everything I hear from the other side..." Then you act as if religion is at odds with science.

Enjoy the mediocrity.

 

[Upisoft]

Damn, another monochrome piece of information on my screen...

 

[Max™]

Wait... is it seriously being discussed that scientists shouldn't consider the age of the earth/universe to be known facts?

That if we let go of what we have learned through trial and error, we could advance through... what, miracles?

Hallelujah, I discovered a dark matter particle just now, amen!


Edit: incidentally, if you used a lot more of your brain at once, I think the technical term would be a grand mal seizure?

 

[Phrak]

An advance in theoretical physics occurred august 17, 2010. In four years or so, it might be presented in a form that even a few of the the most calcified will grudgingly accept.

 

[Upisoft]

An advance in theoretical physics occurred august 17, 2010. In four years or so, it might be presented in a form that even a few of the the most calcified will grudgingly accept.

Is there any information on what it might be? BTW, you said "theoretical"... Is there any indication it will not stay theoretical only?

 

[jambaugh]

[Re: Liquid Tin Anode SOFC] You're going to keep me busy looking up these things for a long time aren't you? Some neat stuff...

This is quiet one which has me very excited. The tech is done, the engineering is all that's left and the promise in terms of distributed power generation and efficiency could be dramatic.

[Re: physological modeling] I don't know that I'd trust #2 here, at least in the near future. The understanding of the processes in the human body is seriously lacking.

The interactivity of physiological systems is crucial to understanding it and we can't do proper experiments on humans for ethical reasons. But little by little we are developing understanding of components and I don't see why we couldn't run some single cell simulations soon. Then build from there.

Marx and Engels tried that, a paradigm designed on the theory that human beings could be perfected. It failed miserably, and caused the deaths of well over 100 million people in trying to implement it. I'll take our voluntary system of prices and free competition over a man-designed system any day.

It wasn't the paradigm which killed the people flawed though it was, it was the same old tyrannies we've seen throughout history. How about a paradigm based on the theory that human beings are a.) not totally rational but be mostly act towards rational self interest.

 

[Evo]

HA! You're hilarious. This is exactly what I am talking about... "Since I believe this, I'm going to watch and ignore everything I hear from the other side..." Then you act as if religion is at odds with science.

Enjoy the mediocrity.

Religious and/or overly speculative posts are not allowed here. Posts with no scientific merit are not allowed here.

 

[Barwick]

Religious and/or overly speculative posts are not allowed here. Posts with no scientific merit are not allowed here.

Well since apparently my posts which HAVE scientific merit and are backed up by evidence, are going to be deleted by said biased "scientists", I shouldn't bother wasting my time trying to reason with someone who's not going to be objective.

By the way, check your messages, either you didn't see it, or ignored it...

 

[inflector]

My prediction is that sometime in the next 10 to 15 years, a theory of quantum gravity will be found that explains a lot more open questions than it creates.

This will be the start of the next big leap forward in physics.

 

[georgir]

On average, mutations occur once every 10 million duplications of DNA, or 1E7
...
Let's go with 1 in 150 being either harmful or beneficial. Now figure out how many are neutral (thousands of times more than the # of beneficial/harmful ones), and we've got another 1 in 1E9 or so, leaving us with a probability of beneficial mutation of 1 in 1E16 or so.

Um sorry, but did you even spend a second to think about what you are posting? This last paragraph of yours is complete nonsense.

If 1 in 150 is not neutral, then 149 are 150 is neutral, plain and simple. that's 149 times more, not "thousands of times more".

Then, even if we go with your "thousands", your math still does not make sense. Take 1 in 1000 mutations being benefical, and a mutation happening every 1e7 divisions, means a benefical mutation happens every 1e10 divisions. The 1e9, 1e16 numers that you pull out of a hat are making my head hurt.

But these mistakes don't matter anyway, the whole calculation is pointless when you don't even know what the result means. You arrive at some huge number and go flaunting it around as some absolute probability. It should be probability per time and then you should sum it over the millions of years that evolution needs, or probability per birth, and you should sum it over the millions of organisms that are born between evolutionary steps. As it is now, you got something like probability per cell division, and to get probability per birth for example you should take into account how many cell divisions happen in an embryo before the sex cells are formed - a figure with which I can't help you unfortunately.

And even your starting assumption about the frequency of mutations is incorrect. I can't check the given reference, it may be true on average in normal conditions today, but it can vary greatly with different conditions, for example increased radiation, i.e. before the ozone layer was formed etc. The chance of mutations is also greater in the more complex process of meiosis, or the formation of sex cells, as well as in sexual fertilisation, than in the usual mitosis. Mutation of the already formed sex cells can also occur while they are idle in storage in an organism and not during a cell division at all.

P.S.: Just to ease up your calculations, I googled up an article about the first human family that had its DNA sequenced.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-10/family-genome-sequence-fewer-mutations-inherited-update1-.html
It says that previous estimates were for about 75 mutations passed to children from each parent or 150 total, and the new data showing around half that mutation rate. That is still huge, and no matter how little the chance of one mutation being benefical is, given a large enough population size and number of generations, it is obvious benefical mutations will occur.

 

[Barwick]

Um sorry, but did you even spend a second to think about what you are posting? This last paragraph of yours is complete nonsense.

If 1 in 150 is not neutral, then 149 are 150 is neutral, plain and simple. that's 149 times more, not "thousands of times more".

Then, even if we go with your "thousands", your math still does not make sense. Take 1 in 1000 mutations being benefical, and a mutation happening every 1e7 divisions, means a benefical mutation happens every 1e10 divisions. The 1e9, 1e16 numers that you pull out of a hat are making my head hurt.

But these mistakes don't matter anyway, the whole calculation is pointless when you don't even know what the result means. You arrive at some huge number and go flaunting it around as some absolute probability. It should be probability per time and then you should sum it over the millions of years that evolution needs, or probability per birth, and you should sum it over the millions of organisms that are born between evolutionary steps. As it is now, you got something like probability per cell division, and to get probability per birth for example you should take into account how many cell divisions happen in an embryo before the sex cells are formed - a figure with which I can't help you unfortunately.

And even your starting assumption about the frequency of mutations is incorrect. I can't check the given reference, it may be true on average in normal conditions today, but it can vary greatly with different conditions, for example increased radiation, i.e. before the ozone layer was formed etc. The chance of mutations is also greater in the more complex process of meiosis, or the formation of sex cells, as well as in sexual fertilisation, than in the usual mitosis. Mutation of the already formed sex cells can also occur while they are idle in storage in an organism and not during a cell division at all.

P.S.: Just to ease up your calculations, I googled up an article about the first human family that had its DNA sequenced.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-10/family-genome-sequence-fewer-mutations-inherited-update1-.html
It says that previous estimates were for about 75 mutations passed to children from each parent or 150 total, and the new data showing around half that mutation rate. That is still huge, and no matter how little the chance of one mutation being benefical is, given a large enough population size and number of generations, it is obvious benefical mutations will occur.

At risk of incurring the wrath of the moderators, who've already deleted multiple replies of mine because she claims they are "religious", despite being based on scientific evidence, I'll respond...

I'm reading back through my post and am not quite sure where I was going with the 1 in 150 turning into 1E9. I think I should have said "Now figure out how many divisions result in neutral mutations". Let's take a base for mutations of 1E7. Out of those, 1 in 150 will be either beneficial or harmful, resulting in a low end of 1E9 divisions resulting in beneficial/harmful mutations. Out of those, the vast majority are harmful (how many times does a mutation in humans result in cancer, vs how many times does it result in a human growing wings, or at least SOMETHING of benefit). Let's go on the absurdly low end and say 1 in 10,000 beneficial/harmful divisions end up being beneficial. That brings us to 1E13 on an absurdly low end, but let's go with it.

Now, take that 1E13 and assume a 5 part system (which is a very very very small system), each part of which offers no benefit on its own, unless all 5 parts are present. Therefore all of which must be developed in the same organism, or successive organisms, despite there not being any natural selection benefit to preserve those traits. Now you're looking at 1E65 chance of that happening (not 1E80 as I said before). It's still an absurdly large number.

Now average that over time:
Let's assume that the entire surface of the Earth is covered by bacteria, and the oceans, instead of being made up of water, are a soup made up entirely of bacteria. And every second for 5 billion years, every single bacteria reproduces.

So we have an absurdly high number of 1 E47 bacteria, reproducing every second for 1 E17 seconds. Given that, we have 1 E64 attempts at generating that 5 part system, giving a 10% chance at producing that incredibly simple system, IF every atom in the ocean and on the surface of the Earth was a bacteria, and IF they reproduced every second, and IF they all tried unique combinations (not repeating any previously tried ones), then you have a chance at producing that very simple system. If you want to get into more complex systems requiring 10 (still simple), 20, 40, 100+ parts, you're looking at very low chances. Just requiring 6 parts changes it to 1E78, and takes us from a 10% chance to a .000000000001% chance. 7 Parts makes it 1E91, so add 13 more zeroes prior to the 1 at the end of the decimal place...

Show me the "religion" in there moderators, and I'll pull the post. Again, when scientists are willing to set aside their preconceptions (like the one I'm discussing here), their eyes will be open to all possibilities for advancement, even if it contradicts their personally held beliefs.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

RNA has a drastically higher mutation rate than DNA because of several DNA repair systems that can correct changes before they become fixed in the genome as mutations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate"
I'm sorry, but I made a very cursory search for RNA transmission error rate and didn't find anything concrete. I'm sure that someone with even slightly more diligence can find it. I don't know how widely accepted this idea is, I read it in a Biology survey course textbook. It said that early life may have been based on RNA alone.

Edit: I forgot to add that it seems to me that what counts is not beneficial/harmful/neutral, but rather persistent.

 

[Upisoft]

At risk of incurring the wrath of the moderators, who've already deleted multiple replies of mine because she claims they are "religious", despite being based on scientific evidence, I'll respond...

Well, OK ... I'm in the mood to listen again. Although if your evidence is scientific you should publish it.

I'm reading back through my post and am not quite sure where I was going with the 1 in 150 turning into 1E9. I think I should have said "Now figure out how many divisions result in neutral mutations". Let's take a base for mutations of 1E7.

Ooooops... "Let's take ..." <- fill the gaps with whatever you wish.
Now, that is not science.

Out of those, 1 in 150 will be either beneficial or harmful, resulting in a low end of 1E9 divisions resulting in beneficial/harmful mutations. Out of those, the vast majority are harmful (how many times does a mutation in humans result in cancer, vs how many times does it result in a human growing wings, or at least SOMETHING of benefit).

Totally irrelevant. Evolution does not happen in an individual (except in a single cell organisms). Even if someone somehow grows wings (not having them in first place, as you compare them to tumor), it will be no evolution. It will be a miracle.

It is obvious that you don't understand the argument what is the evolution.

Let's go on the absurdly low end and say 1 in 10,000 beneficial/harmful divisions end up being beneficial. That brings us to 1E13 on an absurdly low end, but let's go with it.

Now, take that 1E13 and assume a 5 part system (which is a very very very small system), each part of which offers no benefit on its own, unless all 5 parts are present. Therefore all of which must be developed in the same organism, or successive organisms, despite there not being any natural selection benefit to preserve those traits. Now you're looking at 1E65 chance of that happening (not 1E80 as I said before). It's still an absurdly large number.

Now average that over time:
Let's assume that the entire surface of the Earth is covered by bacteria, and the oceans, instead of being made up of water, are a soup made up entirely of bacteria. And every second for 5 billion years, every single bacteria reproduces.

So we have an absurdly high number of 1 E47 bacteria, reproducing every second for 1 E17 seconds. Given that, we have 1 E64 attempts at generating that 5 part system, giving a 10% chance at producing that incredibly simple system, IF every atom in the ocean and on the surface of the Earth was a bacteria, and IF they reproduced every second, and IF they all tried unique combinations (not repeating any previously tried ones), then you have a chance at producing that very simple system. If you want to get into more complex systems requiring 10 (still simple), 20, 40, 100+ parts, you're looking at very low chances. Just requiring 6 parts changes it to 1E78, and takes us from a 10% chance to a .000000000001% chance. 7 Parts makes it 1E91, so add 13 more zeroes prior to the 1 at the end of the decimal place...

Take a coin, toss it million times and record the outcome. It is a string of "tails" and "heads". Now repeat the experiment. How probable it will be that the result will be the same? About 1 per 1E301030, if I'm not wrong in my calculations. Wow! You did the impossible from the first attempt!

 

[CRGreathouse]

So we have an absurdly high number of 1 E47 bacteria, reproducing every second for 1 E17 seconds. Given that, we have 1 E64 attempts at generating that 5 part system, giving a 10% chance at producing that incredibly simple system, IF every atom in the ocean and on the surface of the Earth was a bacteria, and IF they reproduced every second, and IF they all tried unique combinations (not repeating any previously tried ones), then you have a chance at producing that very simple system.

You're looking at the wrong thing. You're asking for the probability that a system will spring up all of the sudden, without any intervening steps. But no one is claiming that this happens!

Consider a simple RNA virus with 20,000 base pairs. With daily replication (not at all unreasonable) and 2 mutations per replication, it only takes 19 years for half the base pairs to change (in each of the descendant viruses). The actual rate of change is both higher and lower: there are major changes by mixing of RNA or DNA (as appropriate by type) which cause faster change, like the novel H1N1, but extreme drift changes take longer as the survival and suitability percentages are taken into account. (Most people think about the first, but the second is actually more important: most organisms are already at a local optimum and moving to a difference equilibrium is hard, tough made easier by changing environments.)

At a rate of 75 base pairs per generation, humans are ~40 million generations removed from chimps. Of course this overstates the distance, since there are chromosomal differences -- whole chromosomes can be doubled, which causes much more than 75 bp changes per generation. Considering how extremely high polysomy is, it's no surprise that this happens frequently enough to throw off the naive rate.

Accounting for the chromosomal differences in a naive way, I estimate more like ~8 million generations. According to Wikipedia, current scientific estimates for the CHLCA puts it at more like 6 million years, a rate perhaps 30 times faster than my very simple estimate -- but in the same sort of ballpark.

I know that some people make remarks suggesting that it's much harder because evolution was 'trying' to make humans (or whatever) and the chances of hitting a particular species out of the space of all possible species is remote. I'm sure no one here will make that silly mistake: there's no goal, no endpoint, just change.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'm sorry, but I made a very cursory search for RNA transmission error rate and didn't find anything concrete.

I used one in 10^4. You can go ten times higher or lower depending on who you listen to and what organism you're talking about.

DNA has a much lower transmission error.

 

[Barwick]

Well, OK ... I'm in the mood to listen again. Although if your evidence is scientific you should publish it.

Tell me you're kidding...

http://www.discovery.org/a/2400
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508160826.asp
http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm
http://creation.com/contemporary-suppression-of-the-theistic-worldview
http://creation.com/darwinian-thought-police-strike-again
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2971456/Royal-Society-scientist-loses-post-in-row-over-creationism-in-schools.html
http://creation.com/expelled-new-movie-exposes-persecution-of-anti-darwinists
http://creation.com/scientific-american-refuses-to-hire-creationist