Darwin and Evolution

[InfiniteNow]

Your correct if you just look at parts, I see evolution more as a system.

 

Doesn't matter. Even system's are not selecting for complexity. They are selecting for that which is best suited for the environment in question. Complexity and simplicity don't really factor in. You're moving of the goal posts does not change applicability of the logic I've shared.

[Thunderbird]

 

Also, complexity is subjective, and not a very useful approach in studies of evolution. It's not very qualitative.

 

Either way, you're refering to heterogeneity, not complexity.

 

 

In science, the precise definition of words is quite important. :naughty:

 

Being subjective is fine when studying complexity, not so much from a view point of reductionism however.

 

Precise paradigms are more important, the vernacular is not the same.

[InfiniteNow]

Being subjective is fine when studying complexity, not so much from a view point of reductionism however.

 

Precise paradigms are more important, the vernacular is not the same.

That's nice, dear. Relevance?

[Thunderbird]

That's nice, dear. Relevance?

 

The reason we are having trouble communicating has to do with two veiws

points.

 

The Emergence of a Science of Emergence

 

Prigogine's non-equilibrium Thermodynamics, Haken's synergetics, Von Bertalanffi's general systems theory and Kauffman's complex adaptive systems all point to the same scenario : the origin of life from inorganic matter is due to emergent processes of self-organization. The same processes account for phenomena at different levels in the organization of the universe, and, in particular, for cognition. Cognition appears to be a general property of systems, not an exclusive of the human mind.

 

A science of emergence, as an alternative to traditional, reductionism, science, could possibly explain all systems (living and not).

[freeztar]

The reason we are having trouble communicating has to do with two veiws

points.

 

The reason you are having trouble communicating TB is because you keep shifting the focus.

 

For example, why not start a thread on "emergent science vs. reductionist science" or "complexity theory in evolution" or "genome derivations" or etc...

 

At this point, it is too confusing to have any meaningful dialogue in this thread, imho. :naughty:

 

What is this thread about again?

[InfiniteNow]

What is this thread about again? :naughty:

 

It's either one of two things. Attempts to clarify common misconceptions about the nature of evolution, or, a case study into the nature of non-sequitur.

[Thunderbird]

The reason you are having trouble communicating TB is because you keep shifting the focus.

 

? :naughty:

 

I have been saying the same thing for several post, Complexity is integral to evolution and the study of evolution.

 

With short simple answers. read the post.

[InfiniteNow]

Complexity is integral to evolution and the study of evolution.

 

You know, maybe if you repeat yourself a few more times your statement will become more accurate.

 

 

Or, more likely, maybe not.

[freeztar]

I have been saying the same thing for several post, Complexity is integral to evolution and the study of evolution.

 

It's impossible to have a discussion when you do not address the questions asked. Until you can demonstrate that you can address the concerns related to your ideas, then no progress can occur.

With short simple answers. read the post.

"Complexity" is inherently complex. "Short simple answers" will not suffice for meaningful discussion.

[MegaManiac]

First of all, how could anyone refute eveolution. Let alone CD himself. Making things better is the natural course of everything. You can't stop it.

 

Doesn't all math lead to a what I'll say is a peak average or common denominator? And keep in mind I don't know shiz about Math. :naughty:

 

MNM

[Thunderbird]

First of all, how could anyone refute eveolution. Let alone CD himself. Making things better is the natural course of everything. You can't stop it.

 

Doesn't all math lead to a what I'll say is a peak average or common denominator? And keep in mind I don't know shiz about Math. :naughty:

 

MNM

 

 

Hi Mega,

 

 

People have a variety of lenses they use to see the world though, these view points are based on paradigms, A model of the world. A deeply religious person see’s the world as ruled by a creator that gives us rules to live by. Science for the last 400 yrs has given us new perspective and rules based on collected info, observation, and the cataloging of the physical world into a meaningful ways to advance understanding.

 

The next big step is to see the world not just as parts but complex systems, this is hard for some to see because of the lens they are using, just as a person with of a religious view point cannot focuses on the scientific view point.

 

This should be understood that there are differing views and they all have there value and place and one should not feel threatened by them.

 

Advancement should always be the goal. and not refuting others paradigms just because they are unfamiliar.

 

OBTW C.D. never refuted evolution.

[CraigD]

The reason we are having trouble communicating has to do with two veiws points.

I suspect this is true.

 

However, this is the Biology forum. It’s intended to discuss biology in a scientific manner, either using common conventional terminology, specialized terminology defined via links and references, or invented or unconventional terminology defined as it is used. The central term involved in Thunderbird’s communication troubles appears to be “genetic complexity”. As I noted in post #22 and Freeztar amplified with an apt reference in post #24, this isn’t a well-defined biological term. So, Thunderbird, if you wish to communicate effectively in this forum, I recommend you define it in one of the above mentioned ways, or, if you’re interest is more in the lines of discussing deviations from conventional biology (eg: new scientific or other paradigms), start a thread in the Philosophy of Science, or similar forum.

 

Other than this miscommunication, I don’t see much disagreement in the past dozen or so posts. Darwinian evolution is the result of a variety of molecular biological events, some of which increase the size of genomes, others of which decrease it. I’m unaware of any credible biological research that indicates that genetic changes of either kind are, in general, more or less prevalent or important factors affecting evolution. Likewise, I’m unaware of any research suggesting that QTLs have tended to involve more or fewer genes in them – another candidate definition of “genetic diversity” - in the course of evolution.

[Eclogite]

We seem to have drifted off topic. A quick summary of the on-topic material reveals that:

a) Darwin did not recant his belief in the theory of evolution through natural selection on his death bed.

:hyper: Even if he had it would have been irrelevant to the validity of the theory.

c) The D.S. remains concerned that such a story, though false, could provide support to anti-evolutionists.

 

That seems to wrap it up for the thread topic, so let me join the other deviants on the complexity discussion.

 

Thunderbird, may I echo some of the earlier comments (In particular Craig D's) and say that either adherence to accepted definitions of complexity, or very clear definitions of your own usage would have been helpful. In that way Infinite Now and Freezestar (and possibly others) would not have invested time in arguing against a point of view that apparently you did not hold.

 

Two of my own observations now:

1) If complexity is so important how do you account for the fact that most species and most biomass is composed of prokaryotes?

2) Your introduction of emergent properties seems to me to be a misreading of their importance to evolution. If you insist upon the primacy of the role of increasing complexity and emergence of structure - life - consciouness - ??? (which you seem to be doing) then you must equally concede the powerful teleological bias this imposes on your viewpoint.

[Thunderbird]

 

Other than this miscommunication, I don’t see much disagreement in the past dozen or so posts. Darwinian evolution is the result of a variety of molecular biological events, some of which increase the size of genomes, others of which decrease it. I’m unaware of any credible biological research that indicates that genetic changes of either kind are, in general, more or less prevalent or important factors affecting evolution. Likewise, I’m unaware of any research suggesting that QTLs have tended to involve more or fewer genes in them – another candidate definition of “genetic diversity” - in the course of evolution.

 

Understood, You make much more sense to me when your not using math formulas that are way over my head. :hyper:

[HydrogenBond]

If selective advantage is what evolves life to the environment, does this imply the environment is what sets the initial potential for evolution since the environment is the cause and selective advantage is the affect? If the environment stays the same there is little need to change. But if the environment changes drastically, we get a quickening in evolution. I am just pointing out a common sense argument, which is ignored. As an example, which advance animals began in the desert? This environment is not as good as lush forest for producing a wider variety of evolution. The mutations in the desert can only go so far if the environment is not cooperating. This is due to the environment being number 1 and mutations number 2.

 

The other argument I made yesterday was ignored so I will repeat it. With multicellular differentiation, all cells have the very same DNA. In spite of all having the same DNA, they end up as a variety. Theoretically, if an ancient cell was starting to do the multicellular thing, differentiating cells, which were only loosely connected, and the life form was sheared, we could end up with a bunch of different cells, without requiring mutations.

 

In multicellular organisms, the cellular differentiations are not done by some random chaos or by mutations. It is very systematic with chemical potentials driving the process. That is why we can teach embryology. It is systematic with random, chaos and mutations playing a secondary role. In the hypothetical scenario above we have chemical potentials differentiating the DNA, with shear separating the loose conglomerate. No mutations are required to get a lot of different cells for selective advantage, which is then driven by environmental potentials. I am not saying mutations are not important but these are often given all the credit. I just showed two scenarios where they will get credit while playing second fiddle.

[freeztar]

If selective advantage is what evolves life to the environment, does this imply the environment is what sets the initial potential for evolution since the environment is the cause and selective advantage is the affect?

 

No.

Again, you are confused about evolution. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. It is not the only mechanism.

 

If the environment stays the same there is little need to change.

 

When does an environment ever stay the same?

 

But if the environment changes drastically, we get a quickening in evolution.

 

Maybe, maybe not, it depends.

 

I am just pointing out a common sense argument, which is ignored. As an example, which advance animals began in the desert? This environment is not as good as lush forest for producing a wider variety of evolution.

 

It depends what you mean by "wider variation of evolution".

 

I'm going to stop there...

[Eclogite]

If selective advantage is what evolves life to the environment, does this imply the environment is what sets the initial potential for evolution since the environment is the cause and selective advantage is the affect?

The environment does not set the potential - that is set by the genetic composition of the organism. The environment sets the constraints on the realisation of that potential.

But if the environment changes drastically, we get a quickening in evolution.

Or a quickening in extinction, with little or no immediate new varieties to replace the old.

As an example, which advance animals began in the desert?

What do you mean by advanced? You have previously, if I recall, fallen into the trap of thinking reptiles are more advanced than fish, mammals more advanced than reptiles. Just how do you define advanced?

As an example, which advance animals began in the desert? This environment is not as good as lush forest for producing a wider variety of evolution.

Keep in mind that before it was lush forest it was a desert. The plants and animals that inhabit the forest are the lineal descendants of those which began by occupying the desert.

The other argument I made yesterday was ignored so I will repeat it. With multicellular differentiation, all cells have the very same DNA. In spite of all having the same DNA, they end up as a variety. Theoretically, if an ancient cell was starting to do the multicellular thing, differentiating cells, which were only loosely connected, and the life form was sheared, we could end up with a bunch of different cells, without requiring mutations.

It is an interesting thought, but as you later point out the differentation is only possible because of chemical gradients and the mutual positions of cells within an organism.