Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on March 02, 2017, 02:00:35 PM
-
Hi everyone,
People here have been arguing for years about random gene variation and Natural Selection...while I have been trying to argue for some kind of a direction and progress in evolution.
Here is an article about evolvability or the increasing ability to evolve in a particular way.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170301-life-may-actually-be-getting-better-at-evolving
***************
Creatures do not seem to be merely at the mercy of random changes, or mutations, in their genes over time. Instead, they actually seem to "improve" their ability to adapt. It seemed this ability was not explained solely by the process of natural selection, in which the best traits are passed on by the most successful organisms.
His ideas could help explain why animals are so good at evolving: a trait called their "evolvability".
Many people will be familiar with the idea that genes are passed from parent to offspring, and those genes that help their hosts survive and reproduce have a better chance of getting passed on. This is the essence of evolution and natural selection.
But there is more to it, because genes often work together. They form "gene networks", and those gene networks can also sometimes be passed intact down the generations.
His contribution is largely to do with the way natural selection acts on those networks.
He believes it does not just act like a partial barrier, letting some adaptations through over others. Instead, the impact of this filtering allows gene networks in animals to actually "learn" what works and what does not over time. This way, they can improve their performance – in much the same way that the artificial neural networks used by computer scientists can "learn" to solve problems.
"Gene networks evolve like neural networks learn," he says. "That's the thing that's novel."
Watson's basis for this claim is the idea that the connections between genes can be strengthened or weakened as a species evolves and changes – and it is the strength of those connections in gene networks that allow organisms to adapt.
This process is similar to how human-made artificial neural networks on computers work.
the connections between adjacent neurons that have similar outputs are strengthened over time. In short: "neurons that fire together, wire together". The network "learns" by creating strong links within itself.
If an organism has certain genes firing together in this way, and that organism proves successful enough to reproduce, then its offspring will not simply inherit its beneficial genes, argues Watson. They will also inherit the connectivity between those genes.
To begin with, this process of trial-and-error updating might work reasonably well. But over time, updating the code this way would become ever more cumbersome. The code would begin to look messy, making it difficult to work out what impact a particular addition might have.
If organisms actually evolved this way, says Watson, "their evolvability – their ability to adapt to new stresses or environments – would be rubbish." But in fact, "the ability of natural organisms to evolve to new selective environments or challenges is awesome."
Watson has also suggested that gene networks can contain "memories" of past adaptations, which can be expressed when required by the environment.
Watson's idea means that organisms would be imbued with multiple options for adapting.
It also implies that gene networks have evolved – in all animals – to be adaptable to Earth's natural world. That is why organisms are so good at responding to the environment: the stresses and strains of living in Earth's environments have been imprinted in the regulatory connections between genes, over the course of millions of years.
The gene networks, he argues, have gradually learned to respond in similar ways in similar situations. Those modular features, such as a butterfly's wing pattern, might be more likely solutions for the learning system than others.
In other words, when given a few necessary conditions, evolution will perform the same tricks again and again.
All of this raises some rather philosophical questions. For one thing, is evolution functioning like a big, natural computer? And does "evolvability" suggest that life is in some sense programmed to improve – at the genetic level at least?
Some biologists flinch at the idea, but if the capacity of organisms to adapt is getting better and better over time, if evolution is learning as it goes, then might it just as well be described this way?
**************
He doesn't seem to talk of epigenetics specifically which is funny. But the idea that organisms are learning to evolve in certain ways to improve their adaptability, seems to indicate a built in 'Intelligence' and ability to evolve in certain ways.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
What the hell has this got to do with "Ethics and Freethought"?
People here have been arguing for years about random gene variation and Natural Selection...while I have been trying to argue for some kind of a direction and progress in evolution.
Well you and your fellow religiously motivated fantasists may have been arguing but, out in the real world, random variation and natural selection has been well established science for some considerable time.
Here is an article about evolvability or the increasing ability to evolve in a particular way.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170301-life-may-actually-be-getting-better-at-evolving
Okay, what actually do we have here? This seems to be based on an opinion paper (http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(15)00293-1) (full pdf (http://www.kokkonuts.org/wp-content/uploads/Watson16.pdf)) and the BBC article itself says that he has no evidence that supports his ideas:-
However, the big challenge for Watson's hypothesis is whether any empirical evidence for it can be found in nature.
Oddly, you missed that bit out of your quote. As an aside, if you are going to quote big chunks of an article, it is usual to indicate where you have omitted sections.
Anyway - what we have here is basically speculation. There is nothing wrong with that but as I said elsewhere, it is important to know what you are actually looking at.
He doesn't seem to talk of epigenetics specifically which is funny.
Why? The idea doesn't appear to have anything at all to do with it.
But the idea that organisms are learning to evolve in certain ways to improve their adaptability, seems to indicate a built in 'Intelligence' and ability to evolve in certain ways.
I don't think you've understood. The speculation is about gene networks "learning" over evolutionary time - not about organisms learning during their individual lifetimes. He doesn't appear to be suggesting any literal intelligence.
For example (in another bit you cut out):-
For instance, perhaps certain groups of organisms could rapidly evolve to eat a food that is harmful to other members of the same species – because their ancestors had already endured such a diet. In the past, the gene-regulatory structure would have been changed, making some gene-expression patterns easier to trigger than others. This "bias" would ultimately help their descendants to digest a tricky meal.
And here, where it talks about how the ideas could be tested:-
Watson suggests analysing how gene networks change in microbes that evolve in the lab. Because microbes like bacteria reproduce so quickly, it is possible to observe several generations of adaptation in a matter of days.
I haven't read the whole paper yet but from the BBC article, it seems we basically have a speculation that a process somewhat like neural network learning may be happening to networks of genes over evoutionary time due to the way random variation and selection acts on said networks.
-
But the idea that organisms are learning to evolve in certain ways to improve their adaptability, seems to indicate a built in 'Intelligence' and ability to evolve in certain ways.
A big conclusion to draw when you consider 'the big challenge for Watson's hypothesis is whether any empirical evidence for it can be found in nature.'
-
A big conclusion to draw when you consider 'the big challenge for Watson's hypothesis is whether any empirical evidence for it can be found in nature.'
It's actually worse than that. Even if Watson's ideas are 100% correct, it wouldn't mean what Sriram wants it to mean.
It's a proposal about mathematical equivalences between types of machine learning and the processes of variation, selection and inheritance. For example, he points out that genotype-phenotype maps are themselves the products of evolution, so, in a sense, the processes of variation are evolving.
It remains to be seen to what extent these ideas are useful but it doesn't question the fact that it is all built on random variation, selection and inheritance. There is nothing here that would give evolution the "direction" Sriram is so keen on - nor does it propose anything like a controlling intelligence.
-
Hi everyone,
I am not trying to read any elaborate spiritual details into the new finding. I am not talking of God or after-life or any thing like that.
The dice is obviously loaded in favor of complexity and this implies a direction. Whether a God has decided this or whatever, is irrelevant. We don't know that.
Many people here have however argued that there is no direction at all and that given enough time, humans will automatically arise merely through random genetic various and NS.
The above article clearly states ......
'Creatures do not seem to be merely at the mercy of random changes, or mutations, in their genes over time. Instead, they actually seem to "improve" their ability to adapt. It seemed this ability was not explained solely by the process of natural selection, in which the best traits are passed on by the most successful organisms.'
'And does "evolvability" suggest that life is in some sense programmed to improve – at the genetic level at least?' '.. if the capacity of organisms to adapt is getting better and better over time, if evolution is learning as it goes, then might it just as well be described this way'
This means that probably there is a mechanism through which this kind of 'learning' can be enabled and organisms can adapt 'better and better' over time.
-
How does complexity imply a direction? If a star is formed from a mass of dust and gas, this can be explained in part by the effects of gravity. So does gravity imply a direction?
'Direction' to me suggests intelligence also. So stars are formed by an unseen hand?
-
I for one wasn't suggesting you were trying to include a God but rather that you were reading far too much into this hypothesis for which there is currentl no evidence in nature as it stated.
-
Do organisms evolve 'better and better'? An awful lot of them have become extinct, and a lot of them are becoming extinct right now. I don't see how evolution itself is 'improving'.
-
I am not trying to read any elaborate spiritual details into the new finding.
It isn't a "finding", it's a speculative hypothesis for which there is, as yet, no supporting evidence.
The dice is obviously loaded in favor of complexity and this implies a direction.
Where did you get the idea that complexity is favoured? Even if it was, that is hardly a specific direction.
Many people here have however argued that there is no direction at all and that given enough time, humans will automatically arise merely through random genetic various and NS.
I know of absolutely nobody who has argued that "humans will automatically arise" from random variation and natural selection - what a silly idea! All the evidence is that humans are a random product of undirected evolutionary change. There was never anything "automatic" or inevitable about it.
There is nothing in the article, or the paper it's based on, that would affect that conclusion.
This means that probably there is a mechanism through which this kind of 'learning' can be enabled and organisms can adapt 'better and better' over time.
The hypothesis suggests that there are processes that have evolved "on top of" the basic random variation of genes, their direct expression in organisms and subsequent selection. The upshot of which would be "better" adaptation to whatever environment a population found itself in (within the limits of previous "experience" or "learning"). There is no magic change in direction - it's basically an increase in the efficiency.
The example I quoted before illustrates the sort of thing being proposed:-
For instance, perhaps certain groups of organisms could rapidly evolve to eat a food that is harmful to other members of the same species – because their ancestors had already endured such a diet. In the past, the gene-regulatory structure would have been changed, making some gene-expression patterns easier to trigger than others. This "bias" would ultimately help their descendants to digest a tricky meal.
-
Yes, if humans arise automatically, that would favour the idea of a direction and a plan. The people who advocate that are people like Simon Conway Morris, a paleontologist who is a Christian. I haven't seen it expressed on this forum.
-
Yes, if humans arise automatically, that would favour the idea of a direction and a plan. The people who advocate that are people like Simon Conway Morris, a paleontologist who is a Christian. I haven't seen it expressed on this forum.
Yes, if there is a direction/plan then we might expect humans to be inevitable but I totally fail to see how anybody could argue that "there is no direction at all and that given enough time, humans will automatically arise merely through random genetic various and NS" - it makes no sense.
-
Yes, if there is a direction/plan then we might expect humans to be inevitable but I totally fail to see how anybody could argue that "there is no direction at all and that given enough time, humans will automatically arise merely through random genetic various and NS" - it makes no sense.
You are arguing this in reverse.
If complex and intelligent humans have arisen from simpler organisms....the usual argument given by spiritualists and others is that there must be a direction and some superior Intelligence must be wanting humans to arise....or Consciousness must be driving evolution in specific directions (I like that!).
Humans cannot possibly arise just by chance. To illustrate this point, usually the old monkey and the typewriter analogy is used. A monkey playing around with a typewriter cannot by chance produce the entire works of Shakepeare. Or a 747 cannot get assembled by chance ...and so on.
The counter argument to this by atheists and scientists is that, given enough time, merely through random variation and NS, humans could be produced. Selection works over long periods of time and will eventually produce complex beings like humans. There is therefore no need to resort to any direction or superior Intelligence to explain the origin of humans! This is what I meant by saying that humans will arise just by random variation and NS, given enough time. This has been argued on here many times (though I can't now produce those threads).
Now ..... according to the above article, evolution does not work entirely by chance. There is a learning process that influences adaptation and evolution (programmed to improve).
I quote once again from the article.....
'Creatures do not seem to be merely at the mercy of random changes, or mutations, in their genes over time. Instead, they actually seem to "improve" their ability to adapt. It seemed this ability was not explained solely by the process of natural selection, in which the best traits are passed on by the most successful organisms.'
'And does "evolvability" suggest that life is in some sense programmed to improve – at the genetic level at least?' '.. if the capacity of organisms to adapt is getting better and better over time, if evolution is learning as it goes, then might it just as well be described this way'
-
That article is someones hypothesis Sriram with no supporting evidence. A thought experiment, nothing more. You do get that don't you?
-
That article is someones hypothesis Sriram with no supporting evidence. A thought experiment, nothing more. You do get that don't you?
Lots of things are hypothesis (Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Parallel Universes, String). But they are taken seriously and could turn out to be true. You can't cherry pick your hypothesis.
-
Lots of things are hypothesis (Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Parallel Universes, String). But they are taken seriously and could turn out to be true. You can't cherry pick your hypothesis.
I'm not, but you are quoting an hypothesis as if it is something supported by evidence. I asked if you recognised that is what you are doing. Do you?
-
You are arguing this in reverse.
- sigh - No Sriram, that would be you.
If complex and intelligent humans have arisen from simpler organisms....the usual argument given by spiritualists and others is that there must be a direction and some superior Intelligence must be wanting humans to arise....or Consciousness must be driving evolution in specific directions (I like that!).
That would be because "spiritualists and others" don't actually understand evolution.
Humans cannot possibly arise just by chance. To illustrate this point, usually the old monkey and the typewriter analogy is used. A monkey playing around with a typewriter cannot by chance produce the entire works of Shakepeare. Or a 747 cannot get assembled by chance ...and so on.
All of which demonstrates the point that you don't understand evolution.
The counter argument to this by atheists and scientists is that, given enough time, merely through random variation and NS, humans could be produced. Selection works over long periods of time and will eventually produce complex beings like humans. There is therefore no need to resort to any direction or superior Intelligence to explain the origin of humans! This is what I meant by saying that humans will arise just by random variation and NS, given enough time. This has been argued on here many times (though I can't now produce those threads).
Misunderstanding piled on misunderstanding. Do you ever pay any attention at all to what is actually said in the posts you don't agree with?
Firstly, the process of natural selection means that the typewriting monkeys and 747 analogies are totally wrong (just how many time does this need repeating!?). Evolution is a process of random variation and (crucially) filtration. Random changes that increase the chances of survival and reproduction, in the context of the environment, are preserved and those that work against it are discarded. There is no need to produce a complex result all at once. In effect, it is an algorithmic "design" process that produces organisms (complex or simple) that are suited to their environments. Producing improbable results (if you tried to generate them all at once, from nothing) is what it does.
Secondly, you using the lottery fallacy in assuming that the improbability of the particular result is significant in itself. Each time lottery numbers are drawn, a very improbable selection of numbers is inevitably produced. If humans were never the target, the improbability of humans in particular, isn't significant. Every organism is very improbable and so is every organism that didn't evolve but could have.
Now ..... according to the above article, evolution does not work entirely by chance. There is a learning process that influences adaptation and evolution (programmed to improve).
Well to be fair, the article, and even the paper, seem a little sensationalized. The point is that there is nothing being proposed that really changes things as fundamentally as you seem to think.
We already know that organisms evolve to deal competently with their environments without any need for an intelligent input or direction. What is being proposed is that it is not only organisms that have evolved but that there are processes, to do with things like the genotype-phenotype maps, that also evolve and do so in a way that compares to machine learning algorithms.
Nowhere is there a suggestion that there is any other input to the overall process other than random variation and selection. It's just making the algorithmic "design" process at bit more complicated. The paper (http://www.kokkonuts.org/wp-content/uploads/Watson16.pdf) itself has a lot to say about mathematically equivalent processes and nothing to say about new inputs.
You need to read and understand what is being said - it's silly just to jump on single words or phrases ("programmed to improve" - wow - programmed! - that must mean by some programmer! - that's like direction and intelligent design!).
And, yet again - this is nothing more than a speculative hypothesis for which there is no evidence...
-
I'm not, but you are quoting an hypothesis as if it is something supported by evidence. I asked if you recognised that is what you are doing. Do you?
Maeght,
As I said...a hypothesis is usually good enough to explain most phenomena. You will not find hard evidence for everything. Even Relativity was a hypothesis for many decades. Nothing wrong with that.
As I understand the article in the OP, we can perhaps think of it in terms of the ...'Monkey and the typewriter' analogy.
Though many scientists claim that a monkey typing randomly on a typewriter (computer) will eventually, given enough time, produce meaningful essays....this is clearly nonsense!! Nothing of that kind will ever happen.
However, if the computer is programmed to isolate and store separately in its memory, every word that is meaningful...then such words could form a large word bank. If these words are thrown up every time the monkey types, then in course of time meaningful sentences could get produced. Such sentences would again get isolated and stored, to be thrown up every time the monkey types. If this process continues, it is indeed possible (given enough time) that some meaningful essay is produced by the monkey even though it is typing at random.
In other words, the programming of the computer to isolate meaningful words and sentences, could give a direction to a random event.
This is what I find quite interesting about the article.
Obviously, the question would arise as to how and why the computer is programmed and who decides which words and sentences are meaningful. But that is a premature discussion currently.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
As I said...a hypothesis is usually good enough to explain most phenomena.
No they aren't. A hypothesis is essentially a detailed guess. They cannot be considered as explanations until there is evidence.
You will not find hard evidence for everything. Even Relativity was a hypothesis for many decades. Nothing wrong with that.
You are right that hypotheses are a necessary part of the scientific method and that a few of them go on to become established theories.
Though many scientists claim that a monkey typing randomly on a typewriter (computer) will eventually, given enough time, produce meaningful essays....this is clearly nonsense!! Nothing of that kind will ever happen.
This is not a claim that is made by scientists in order to explain evolution. I challenge you to cite a single instance in which this argument has been used by a scientist as an explanation of how evolution works.
It's actually a rather pitiful straw man fallacy used by dishonest creationists and proponents of intelligent design.
However, as an aside, it is actually true that if you generate random characters for long enough, then any desired string will eventually be produced. It's just not how evolution works.
However, if the computer is programmed to isolate and store separately in its memory, every word that is meaningful...then such words could form a large word bank. If these words are thrown up every time the monkey types, then in course of time meaningful sentences could get produced. Such sentences would again get isolated and stored, to be thrown up every time the monkey types. If this process continues, it is indeed possible (given enough time) that some meaningful essay is produced by the monkey even though it is typing at random.
In other words, the programming of the computer to isolate meaningful words and sentences, could give a direction to a random event.
Yes, except of course there is already a known process that isolates and preserves "meaningful" information from random variation - it's called "natural selection" - you may have heard of it.
This is what I find quite interesting about the article.
Obviously, the question would arise as to how and why the computer is programmed and who decides which words and sentences are meaningful. But that is a premature discussion currently.
Again, you've totally misunderstood. There isn't "a computer" in the hypothesis - just (many) systems that are responding to natural selection in ways that resemble machine learning algorithms.
-
Maeght,
As I said...a hypothesis is usually good enough to explain most phenomena.
Absolutely not.
-
Again, you've totally misunderstood. There isn't "a computer" in the hypothesis - just (many) systems that are responding to natural selection in ways that resemble machine learning algorithms.
No...you don't understand. Natural Selection acts on all organisms equally in any specific environment. Worms, spiders, lizards, birds, lions, elephants and ...humans. It doesn't explain diversity or complexity or emergent properties.
-
No...you don't understand. Natural Selection acts on all organisms equally in any specific environment. Worms, spiders, lizards, birds, lions, elephants and ...humans. It doesn't explain diversity or complexity or emergent properties.
Wrong.
-
No...you don't understand. Natural Selection acts on all organisms equally in any specific environment. Worms, spiders, lizards, birds, lions, elephants and ...humans. It doesn't explain diversity or complexity or emergent properties.
As Gordon succinctly put it, this is just wrong. For one thing, if two different species are in the "same environment" then the environment of one species includes the other - so they don't have the same environment at all. If they are predator and prey you can get an "evolutionary arms race (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/armsrace_01)".
You clearly don't have the first clue about evolution and natural selection; if you're going to talk about it - learn about it!
Evolution 101 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01).
-
I don't agree that random genetic variation and Natural Selection explain evolution as we see it. This, to me, is common sense.
'Natural Selection' is just a metaphor and not a specific process at all!
Cheers.
-
I don't agree that random genetic variation and Natural Selection explain evolution as we see it. This, to me, is common sense.
'Natural Selection' is just a metaphor and not a specific process at all!
Cheers.
Common sense?! Blimey - lets rip up all the scientific papers, text books and learned journals and replace them with Sriram's common sense conclusions.
-
I don't agree that random genetic variation and Natural Selection explain evolution as we see it. This, to me, is common sense.
So, Sriram thinks that the vast majority of scientists that study evolution are idiots who can't see "common sense".
'Natural Selection' is just a metaphor and not a specific process at all!
No Sriram, it can't possibly be a metaphor because it's a term that was coined specifically to denote the process in question. It's even defined by the process in the dictionary...
Biology
The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin, and it is now regarded as be the main process that brings about evolution.
-
I don't agree that random genetic variation and Natural Selection explain evolution as we see it. This, to me, is common sense.
'Natural Selection' is just a metaphor and not a specific process at all!
Cheers.
In other words you understand nothing whatsoever about the TofE, which makes your above opinion a fallacious argument from ignorance.
-
I don't agree that random genetic variation and Natural Selection explain evolution as we see it. This, to me, is common sense.
'Natural Selection' is just a metaphor and not a specific process at all!
Cheers.
I don't see what is metaphorical about it. If you are the weakest runt of the litter you are likelier to get picked of by a predator. Nothing metaphorical about ending up as someone else's lunch, this is nature red in tooth and claw, it is reality, actuality and it happens remorselessly, incessantly.
-
H everyone,
I have argued this many times over the years...
I am not questioning evolution. I am merely saying that there has to be some real process or processes within the organisms that drive its adaptability. These could be genetic changes, epigenetics, microbiome, evolvability (refer the OP article)...and perhaps many other factors that we don't know yet. These are the driving factors of evolution.
Attributing evolution to something nebulous called Natural Selection is rubbish. It is a 'one size fits all' idea. Darwin came up with Natural Selection as an extension of Artificial Selection in which humans breed animals and plants with specific goals in mind. Darwin was not an atheist and so perhaps believed in some kind of Intelligence within Nature that drove his idea of 'Selection' in the same way that humans drove Artificial Selection.
But the Neo Darwinian idea of Natural Selection through random gene variation is without any specific process. There is no Law of Natural Selection, no defined process, no predictability. It is too general. Anything can be lumped into NS. An elephant is due to natural selection, a butterfly is due to NS, a spider is due to NS, a shark is due to NS, a bacteria is due to NS, humans are due to NS. Anything that survives is due to NS. Anything that dies out is due to NS.
There is no guarantee that weaker organisms will dies out and stronger ones only will survive. Diversity and complexity are not explained by NS. Emergent properties are not explained by NS.
I know that organisms adapt to their environment. But that is due to internal processes within the organism that reacts to the environment...through such processes as epigenetics, evolvability etc....and other unknowns. These were unknown in earlier decades but today these are active areas of research.
We can't just say...it is all due to Natural Selection! What 'Selection'? Who selects? On what basis? What is the criterion? For how long should an organism/species survive to be deemed selected?
Anything that happens to survive is 'selected'. Anything that happens to die is 'not selected'? That is a rubbish theory. It is just a metaphor.
To me it is fairly obvious. Most of you guys however have gotten programmed to accept this 'theory' from childhood and it has probably become a meme.....and you are just unable to think 'out of the box' on this.
Anyway...cheers!
Sriram
-
H everyone,
I have argued this many times over the years...
I am not questioning evolution. I am merely saying that there has to be some real process or processes within the organisms that drive its adaptability. These could be genetic changes, epigenetics, microbiome, evolvability (refer the OP article)...and perhaps many other factors that we don't know yet. These are the driving factors of evolution.
Attributing evolution to something nebulous called Natural Selection is rubbish. It is a 'one size fits all' idea. Darwin came up with Natural Selection as an extension of Artificial Selection in which humans breed animals and plants with specific goals in mind. Darwin was not an atheist and so perhaps believed in some kind of Intelligence within Nature that drove his idea of 'Selection' in the same way that humans drove Artificial Selection.
But the Neo Darwinian idea of Natural Selection through random gene variation is without any specific process. There is no Law of Natural Selection, no defined process, no predictability. It is too general. Anything can be lumped into NS. An elephant is due to natural selection, a butterfly is due to NS, a spider is due to NS, a shark is due to NS, a bacteria is due to NS, humans are due to NS. Anything that survives is due to NS. Anything that dies out is due to NS.
There is no guarantee that weaker organisms will dies out and stronger ones only will survive. Diversity and complexity are not explained by NS. Emergent properties are not explained by NS.
I know that organisms adapt to their environment. But that is due to internal processes within the organism that reacts to the environment...through such processes as epigenetics, evolvability etc....and other unknowns. These were unknown in earlier decades but today these are active areas of research.
We can't just say...it is all due to Natural Selection! What 'Selection'? Who selects? On what basis? What is the criterion? For how long should an organism/species survive to be deemed selected?
Anything that happens to survive is 'selected'. Anything that happens to die is 'not selected'? That is a rubbish theory. It is just a metaphor.
To me it is fairly obvious. Most of you guys however have gotten programmed to accept this 'theory' from childhood and it has probably become a meme.....and you are just unable to think 'out of the box' on this.
Anyway...cheers!
Sriram
Nice rant: which clearly demonstrates yet again that you don't understand evolution. Perhaps you should avail yourself of the link SKoS posted for your attention yesterday.
-
There is no guarantee that weaker organisms will dies out and stronger ones only will survive.
Guarantee is perhaps not the best word, you need to think in terms of the effects of likelihoods across populations over time. Individuals lacking a beneficial mutation might survive, but the trend over time will be for beneficial mutations to flourish and deleterious ones to be eliminated over the population. 'Beneficial' and 'deleterious' being defined within the context of the life style and environment of the species.
Diversity and complexity are not explained by NS. Emergent properties are not explained by NS.
Why not ? Take the evolution of white skin in Europeans; this is a case of diversity (in skin colour) arising out of the spread of mutations that proved beneficial in the environmental context of lower sunlight levels found in northern Europe. We don't have to imagine that an African migrant would be killed by the different climate, but rather that individuals not carrying the relevant mutations for depigmentation would tend to die earlier due to higher incidence of rickets and other conditions associated with vitamin D deficiency.
-
We can't just say...it is all due to Natural Selection! What 'Selection'? Who selects? On what basis? What is the criterion? For how long should an organism/species survive to be deemed selected?
Anything that happens to survive is 'selected'. Anything that happens to die is 'not selected'? That is a rubbish theory. It is just a metaphor.
Nature selects.
I think you are just hung up on the anthropomorphism that could be read into the word 'selection'. We should be wary of anthropomorphism. Nature selects, but does so indiscriminately, without any overarching guiding agenda. We humans might be sad that polar bears and pandas are threatened with extinction, but nature doesn't care.
-
I have argued this many times over the years...
Yes, and either because you can't be bothered to learn or are genuinely unable to grasp it, you have always argued from a position of total ignorance.
I am not questioning evolution. I am merely saying that there has to be some real process or processes within the organisms that drive its adaptability. These could be genetic changes, epigenetics, microbiome, evolvability (refer the OP article)...and perhaps many other factors that we don't know yet. These are the driving factors of evolution.
Attributing evolution to something nebulous called Natural Selection is rubbish. It is a 'one size fits all' idea...
Natural selection is a real process - you can observe it in a laboratory or simulate it on a computer. It is not in the least bit nebulous. Evolution by natural selection is actually one of the simples theories in modern science (you don't need complex mathematics for a start) and yet you seem totally unable to grasp it (silly references to non-existent scientists who talk of typing monkeys!).
You also don't understand the article but as you can't grasp the basic theory, that is to be expected.
Darwin came up with Natural Selection as an extension of Artificial Selection in which humans breed animals and plants with specific goals in mind. Darwin was not an atheist and so perhaps believed in some kind of Intelligence within Nature that drove his idea of 'Selection' in the same way that humans drove Artificial Selection.
Have you read On the Origin of Species?
But the Neo Darwinian idea of Natural Selection through random gene variation is without any specific process. There is no Law of Natural Selection, no defined process, no predictability. It is too general. Anything can be lumped into NS. An elephant is due to natural selection, a butterfly is due to NS, a spider is due to NS, a shark is due to NS, a bacteria is due to NS, humans are due to NS. Anything that survives is due to NS. Anything that dies out is due to NS.
Until you can grasp that yes, all those organisms are the result of natural selection and that there is absolutely no vagueness or contradiction in that, then you haven't understood. You seem to think that natural selection should be selecting for some specific organism or something? It's very hard to see what you think natural selection means.
There is no guarantee that weaker organisms will dies out and stronger ones only will survive. Diversity and complexity are not explained by NS. Emergent properties are not explained by NS.
Then the enormous ego rears its ugly head - do you actually think that none of the scientists that study this would have noticed if it didn't explain diversity?
We can't just say...it is all due to Natural Selection! What 'Selection'? Who selects? On what basis? What is the criterion? For how long should an organism/species survive to be deemed selected?
Seriously, you don't know what the criterion is? You don't see why your last question is utterly silly?
Please try to learn something about it. Myself and others have tried to explain but your misunderstanding seems to run deep. You need to find some solid information (like Evolution 101 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01)) put aside what you think you know and start again...
-
Nature selects.
I think you are just hung up on the anthropomorphism that could be read into the word 'selection'. We should be wary of anthropomorphism. Nature selects, but does so indiscriminately, without any overarching guiding agenda. We humans might be sad that polar bears and pandas are threatened with extinction, but nature doesn't care.
Nature cannot 'select'. If it is not anthropomorphic...why do you keep saying it selects? The environment induces certain processes within the organism....which is what drives evolutionary changes. Once these changes happen the organism either survives or dies. This survival or dying is an outcome of the changes happening in the organism. It is not the process itself.
This outcome is what you call as Natural Selection. As though something has been selected and something else has been rejected. It is however not the process by which evolutionary changes happen.
As you yourself say...it is not necessarily a direct act of one organism killing another. It could be illness, food scarcity or anything that kills off one organism/species. It is chance. In every case however, you continue to contend that Nature has selected or rejected something. This is simply not true. It is only a metaphoric way of looking at the outcome. It is not a predictable process or an inevitable Law of nature.
Before the days of epigenetics and findings in gene expression, this might have been the only way to explain evolutionary process. Today, it is not necessary to take recourse to some chancy, metaphorical explanation.
This is why the article in the OP is relevant. If evolutionary changes are driven by learning and earlier experiences.....then the dice is loaded. It is not just a chance anymore.
-
Nature cannot 'select'. If it is not anthropomorphic...why do you keep saying it selects? The environment induces certain processes within the organism....which is what drives evolutionary changes. Once these changes happen the organism either survives or dies. This survival or dying is an outcome of the changes happening in the organism. It is not the process itself.
This outcome is what you call as Natural Selection. As though something has been selected and something else has been rejected.
Totally wrong - that isn't how evolution by natural selection works at all. Evolution doesn't happen to individual organisms, it happens to populations of organisms over the course of generations. Organisms in a population vary (due to various mechanisms (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_16)), and if a variation proves to be even a small statistical advantage (in terms of survival and reproduction), then it will tend to increase in the population. That's what natural selection is.
You really need understand the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. You can then disagree if you want, but at least you'd understand what you were disagreeing with.
Try: Mechanisms: the processes of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_14)
Honestly, what is the point of you talking about natural selection if you don't know what it means?
Before the days of epigenetics and findings in gene expression, this might have been the only way to explain evolutionary process. Today, it is not necessary to take recourse to some chancy, metaphorical explanation.
You seem obsessed with epigenetics but epigenetics does not change the basic DNA sequence so it cannot possibly replace the theory of evolution by natural selection. There is plenty of evidence for the theory in genetics alone. Genetics can be used to show evolutionary relationships between species and certain evolutionary changes can be exactly pinpointed in the genome.
This is why the article in the OP is relevant. If evolutionary changes are driven by learning and earlier experiences.....then the dice is loaded. It is not just a chance anymore.
Again, any "learning" that is going on (according to this speculative hypothesis, for which there is no evidence) is also being driven by random variation and selection. That's how the "things" that are "learning" evolved.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution_of_epigenetic_modifications_to_evolution
***********
The role of epigenetics in evolution is clearly linked to the selective pressures that regulate that process. As organisms leave offspring that are best suited to their environment, environmental stresses change DNA gene expression that are further passed down to their offspring, allowing for them also to better thrive in their environment. The classic case study of the rats who experience licking and grooming from their mothers pass this trait to their offspring shows that a mutation in the DNA sequence is not required for a heritable change.[10] Basically, a high degree of maternal nurturing makes the offspring of that mother more likely to nurture their own children with a high degree of care as well. Rats with a lower degree of maternal nurturing are less likely to nurture their own offspring with so much care. Also, rates of epigenetic mutations, such as DNA methylation, are much higher than rates of mutations transmitted genetically[11] and are easily reversed.[12] This provides a way for variation within a species to rapidly increase, in times of stress, providing opportunity for adaptation to newly arising selection pressures.
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed that species experience certain obstacles in their lifetimes which they must overcome. They acquire certain characteristics to deal with these challenges, and such accumulations are then passed to their offspring. In modern terms, this transmission from parent to offspring would be considered a method of epigenetic inheritance. Scientists are now questioning the framework of the modern synthesis, as epigenetics has shown to be in direct contrast with the core of Darwinism while being in agreement with Lamarckism. While some evolutionary biologists have dismissed epigenetics' impact on evolution entirely, others have begun to discover that a fusion of both epigenetic and traditional genetic inheritance may contribute to the variations seen in species today.[13]
************
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution_of_epigenetic_modifications_to_evolution
None of which suggests that epigenetics can replace genetic change via evolution by natural selection - the clue is in the title: "Contribution of epigenetic modifications to evolution". You can't evolve (for example) eyes - or even a modification like tricolour vision - without genetic changes.
I mean FFS, this is the age of genetic engineering - we've made glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants using firefly genes. We are entering the age of synthetic biology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology). The idea that genetic change isn't central to the differences between species and hence central to evolution is as silly as suggesting that the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun.
And you still need to understand what natural selection means, if you are going to talk about it...
-
I have not suggested that genetic changes do not take place. Obviously, genetic changes are fundamental to evolution. The point is that it is not just through random variation. There are epigenetic influences and perhaps other influences as well that the article in the OP suggests. Gene expression could be as important as genetic variation in determining phenotype and survival.
Inheritance is not as simple as we think. It is not just genes. It is genetics + epigenetics + evolvability + other factors we don't know yet.
Since inheritance is so complex, adaptation to environmental changes is also very complex. There are very many factors working within the organism that determine adaptation...and thereby evolution. It cannot be as simple as random genetic variation and some metaphorical explanation like Natural Selection which is not even a well defined process.
-
I have not suggested that genetic changes do not take place. Obviously, genetic changes are fundamental to evolution. The point is that it is not just through random variation. There are epigenetic influences and perhaps other influences as well that the article in the OP suggests. Gene expression could be as important as genetic variation in determining phenotype and survival.
You say genetic change is "not just through random variation" and then go on list things that don't actually change the genome (and the article in the OP that you don't understand).
Firstly, many phenotype characteristics are known to be based on genes (that's why we can do genetic engineering). Those have to come about somehow and you have yet to suggest anything that could replace random variation.
Secondly, it is beyond sane doubt that random variation and natural selection does happen.
Inheritance is not as simple as we think. It is not just genes. It is genetics + epigenetics + evolvability + other factors we don't know yet.
Since inheritance is so complex, adaptation to environmental changes is also very complex. There are very many factors working within the organism that determine adaptation...and thereby evolution.
Anything that happens within an organism cannot be significant to evolution unless it is heritable. Epigenetics fits the bill but it cannot change the genome so cannot replace genetic changes.
It cannot be as simple as random genetic variation and some metaphorical explanation like Natural Selection which is not even a well defined process.
You are simply wrong. It isn't metaphorical and it is defined. It's actually closer to being a truism than a metaphor.
I really don't understand why you persist with this wilful ignorance - all you have to do is read a reputable account of the process (or even take some notice of what has been posted here) and you'd be able to discuss it sensibly (even if you didn't think it was correct). Calling it "undefined" and "metaphorical" just emphasises the fact that you don't understand and, apparently, aren't interested in understanding...
-
As organisms leave offspring that are best suited to their environment,
This is not true. This is not how natural selection works.
The classic case study of the rats who experience licking and grooming from their mothers pass this trait to their offspring
There are other mechanisms of inheritance than genetics. Who'd have thought. perhaps you should consider why your first language is almost certainly the same as your parents'.
-
Nature cannot 'select'. If it is not anthropomorphic...why do you keep saying it selects? The environment induces certain processes within the organism....which is what drives evolutionary changes. Once these changes happen the organism either survives or dies. This survival or dying is an outcome of the changes happening in the organism. It is not the process itself.
This outcome is what you call as Natural Selection. As though something has been selected and something else has been rejected. It is however not the process by which evolutionary changes happen.
As you yourself say...it is not necessarily a direct act of one organism killing another. It could be illness, food scarcity or anything that kills off one organism/species. It is chance. In every case however, you continue to contend that Nature has selected or rejected something. This is simply not true. It is only a metaphoric way of looking at the outcome. It is not a predictable process or an inevitable Law of nature.
I don't know why, you seem to be making heavy weather of the phrase 'natural selection'. The phrase was coined to differentiate what happens in nature from the same thing that happens when breeders select individuals from a litter to breed from, ie artificial or intelligent selection. There is still a selection going on, but in nature, clearly there is no conscious choice or purpose involved in the process of selection. You could argue that the phrase is making figurative use of the word 'select' since that is normally associated with conscious choice, but that does not imply that there isn't a real process going on. There is an inevitability to the process also - if a population of herbivores migrated into a colder climate for instance, it is pretty inevitable that they would develop cold weather adaptations like thicker fur over time. The outcomes of natural selection are not unpredictable : they might be hard to predict in detail. but that is merely a computation problem and not a problem of principle. Epigenetic changes are subject to natural selection also; a pack of wolves chasing down a bison that seems slower than the rest is not going to stop and ponder whether its slowness is due to epigenetic factors or due to classical Mendelian inheritance. The arcane routes through which novelty and diversity might manifest are of no consequence to the process of natural selection.
-
I don't know why, you seem to be making heavy weather of the phrase 'natural selection'. The phrase was coined to differentiate what happens in nature from the same thing that happens when breeders select individuals from a litter to breed from, ie artificial or intelligent selection. There is still a selection going on, but in nature, clearly there is no conscious choice or purpose involved in the process of selection. You could argue that the phrase is making figurative use of the word 'select' since that is normally associated with conscious choice, but that does not imply that there isn't a real process going on. There is an inevitability to the process also - if a population of herbivores migrated into a colder climate for instance, it is pretty inevitable that they would develop cold weather adaptations like thicker fur over time. The outcomes of natural selection are not unpredictable : they might be hard to predict in detail. but that is merely a computation problem and not a problem of principle. Epigenetic changes are subject to natural selection also; a pack of wolves chasing down a bison that seems slower than the rest is not going to stop and ponder whether its slowness is due to epigenetic factors or due to classical Mendelian inheritance. The arcane routes through which novelty and diversity might manifest are of no consequence to the process of natural selection.
As you say and as I have said earlier, Natural Selection is merely an idea drawn from Artificial Selection that produces a variety of animals and plants specifically tailored for certain objectives. NS makes sense only if there is a set objective and direction to evolution. We can then talk of 'selection'. Otherwise it is metaphorical and nothing more.
Pack of wolves killing a bison or getting killed by bisons...are both Natural Selection according to you. Which is absurd. It is just a result of the adaptations that both species have developed and the circumstances at that time. There is no defined process that we can call Natural Selection nor predict the outcome. Whatever the outcome, it is NS!!!
Natural Selection is like 'God did it'. You can lump anything into it and make it fit. Something survives it is NS. The same thing dies, it is NS. An asteroid kills a whole species, it is NS. A whole species survives the asteroid, it is NS.
Evolution happens because of adaptations to specific environmental conditions. This is an internal process. Adaptations can happen in any number of ways to suit the species and the environment. It is these adaptations that govern evolutionary change.
-
As you say and as I have said earlier, Natural Selection is merely an idea drawn from Artificial Selection that produces a variety of animals and plants specifically tailored for certain objectives. NS makes sense only if there is a set objective and direction to evolution. We can then talk of 'selection'. Otherwise it is metaphorical and nothing more.
Pack of wolves killing a bison or getting killed by bisons...are both Natural Selection according to you. Which is absurd. It is just a result of the adaptations that both species have developed and the circumstances at that time. There is no defined process that we can call Natural Selection nor predict the outcome. Whatever the outcome, it is NS!!!
Natural Selection is like 'God did it'. You can lump anything into it and make it fit. Something survives it is NS. The same thing dies, it is NS. An asteroid kills a whole species, it is NS. A whole species survives the asteroid, it is NS.
Evolution happens because of adaptations to specific environmental conditions. This is an internal process. Adaptations can happen in any number of ways to suit the species and the environment. It is these adaptations that govern evolutionary change.
I take it that you've yet to take up the suggestion of actually learning something about the TofE since the above is no more than a fallacious argument from ignorance.
-
So Sriram, I see you are still heroically wrestling with a straw man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) version of natural selection. As far as I can see (given all the information that has been made available to you) there can only be three reasons for this.
- You are being deliberately dishonest.
- You are too bone idle find out about the real theory.
- You are too stupid to understand it.
Pack of wolves killing a bison or getting killed by bisons...are both Natural Selection according to you. Which is absurd.
It may be absurd in your straw man version but in the real theory, species that interact are part of the selective pressure on each other. As I pointed out before, the predator-prey relationship can drive "evolutionary arms races (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_arms_race)".
If you go away and learn something, you might be able to make a credible argument. As it is you are just displaying your ignorance.
Evolution 101 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01).
-
As you say and as I have said earlier, Natural Selection is merely an idea drawn from Artificial Selection that produces a variety of animals and plants specifically tailored for certain objectives. NS makes sense only if there is a set objective and direction to evolution. We can then talk of 'selection'. Otherwise it is metaphorical and nothing more.
Well you are just arguing that you don't like the phrase. Big deal. You could call it something else if it suits, but then you will create communication problems with other people as the phrase 'natural selection' has become well established.
-
Pack of wolves killing a bison or getting killed by bisons...are both Natural Selection according to you. Which is absurd. It is just a result of the adaptations that both species have developed and the circumstances at that time. There is no defined process that we can call Natural Selection nor predict the outcome. Whatever the outcome, it is NS!!!
Natural Selection is like 'God did it'. You can lump anything into it and make it fit. Something survives it is NS. The same thing dies, it is NS. An asteroid kills a whole species, it is NS. A whole species survives the asteroid, it is NS.
I think you just haven't grasped the power and range of the concept. it is not without justification that many have called evolution by natural selection the most powerful single concept to ever enter a human mind. It is because this insight has such side ranging explanatory power. I don't see why you seem to struggle to understand it, it isn't actually a difficult concept, unlike most concepts in modern physics for example.
-
Evolution happens because of adaptations to specific environmental conditions. This is an internal process. Adaptations can happen in any number of ways to suit the species and the environment. It is these adaptations that govern evolutionary change.
yes, and exactly how and why do some adaptive changes proliferate and others not ? It is because some changes will confer a benefit to the individual in survival and reproduction terms, other changes may confer a disadvantage. That is the process we call natural selection and it results in species developing over time to fit changing ecological niches and varying environmental factors.
-
yes, and exactly how and why do some adaptive changes proliferate and others not ? It is because some changes will confer a benefit to the individual in survival and reproduction terms, other changes may confer a disadvantage. That is the process we call natural selection and it results in species developing over time to fit changing ecological niches and varying environmental factors.
In other words, you are saying that chance factors and chance environmental changes will determine which one will survive and which one will die out. I agree. That is why I called Natural Selection a metaphorical explanation. It is chance. One day a bison may die the next day the wolf may die.
However, if certain adaptations and 'learning' through evolvability (as in the OP), give an organism an advantage in terms of its specific adaptations, then it is these changes within the organism that are responsible for its survival. Not some chance external factors that you generally label as Natural Selection.
-
In other words, you are saying that chance factors and chance environmental changes will determine which one will survive and which one will die out. I agree. That is why I called Natural Selection a metaphorical explanation. It is chance. One day a bison may die the next day the wolf may die.
However, if certain adaptations and 'learning' through evolvability (as in the OP), give an organism an advantage in terms of its specific adaptations, then it is these changes within the organism that are responsible for its survival. Not some chance external factors that you generally label as Natural Selection.
It's a combination of both factors; mutations and the genetic shuffling that come with sex provide a source of novelty for selection to act upon; the broader ecological and environmental conditions determine which mutations are favourable and which aren't.
-
In other words, you are saying that chance factors and chance environmental changes will determine which one will survive and which one will die out. I agree. That is why I called Natural Selection a metaphorical explanation. It is chance. One day a bison may die the next day the wolf may die.
Do you not have any grasp at all of an advantage in a given environment? Or is it statistics that you haven't understood?
If you're an antelope and the main cause of antelope deaths this season is being eaten by a lion, then the ability to run faster than your fellow antelopes is likely to prolong your life. It doesn't mean that every faster antelope survives and every slower one gets eaten. There is, however, a statistical advantage which means that more faster antelopes survive and reproduce than slower ones. Hence (assuming running speed is heritable) speeds in the population increase.
That is an example of natural selection. What is so hard?
-
It's a combination of both factors; mutations and the genetic shuffling that come with sex provide a source of novelty for selection to act upon; the broader ecological and environmental conditions determine which mutations are favourable and which aren't.
The real process that enables survival is the adaptation. The environmental factors are only chance which could work either way...and cannot be seen as a defined process. In spite of all many factors being against them, several species have survived. In spite of factors being favorable, many species have died out.
Even we humans are an example. In spite of all adverse environmental factors, we have developed some characteristics that have enabled us to survive. It is these internal factors and adaptations that have enabled us to survive.....not the external ones. We have actually fought against external factors to survive through greater adaptations.
My point is simple. It is adaptations that enable a species to survive in spite of adverse environmental pressures. This is not a random process. There is actually an internal 'learning' and adjustment. A direct connection can be established between every case of survival and its adaptation. It is not some chance external factor that you label as Natural Selection.
You people don't want to emphasize the internal processes that enable adaptation even in hostile environments....because this could entail some sort of purpose or Intelligence at work within the organism. You prefer emphasizing the chance external factors. That is the problem.
Anyway, I think I am done on this thread.
Thanks & Cheers.
-
Are you actually serious Sriram? I mean, it's beginning to look like you're just pretending to be dim for a laugh...
The real process that enables survival is the adaptation. The environmental factors are only chance which could work either way...and cannot be seen as a defined process. In spite of all many factors being against them, several species have survived. In spite of factors being favorable, many species have died out.
Even we humans are an example. In spite of all adverse environmental factors, we have developed some characteristics that have enabled us to survive. It is these internal factors and adaptations that have enabled us to survive.....not the external ones. We have actually fought against external factors to survive through greater adaptations.
My point is simple. It is adaptations that enable a species to survive in spite of adverse environmental pressures.
Yes, of course it is adaptation that enables species to survive in spite of adverse environmental pressures - that's what adaptation means.
So what is an adaptation? It's a change that has the effect of enabling the population to survive. So how do we know that a change has that effect? Because those individuals that have the change tend to survive better in the environment than those without it. That's why the population as a whole changes (as in the fast antelopes #48).
As long as there is some source of variation, then some of those variations will become adaptations simply because they work in the environment.
That's natural selection.
It's really simple.
Anyway, I think I am done on this thread.
Yes, if haven't grasped it yet, you probably never will...
-
Wow Sriram, I actually thought you had a better grasp on Evolution by Natural Selection than that - but clearly not.