Darwin and Evolution

[Thunderbird]

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.

 

No, not in the way you think, life, and consciousness, are just pre-existing properties that manifest though complex self organizing principals inherent in the universe.

 

 

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).

 

 

http://http://www.thymos.com/tat/emergenc.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complexity

Complexity as a science relates to structure and order that are to be found between the condition of total randomness (chaos) and total order. Animals, human and non, are examples of organized complex systems. The significance of chaos and complexity within the context of animal models is that separate and independent routes arrive at similar conclusions concerning ecosystems and compatibility. Issues of modeling complex systems in biology are in part a mathematical issue about dynamics, and in part a physical issue about choice of model system.

There is a difference between exploring dynamical possibilities with a model and making predictions about one type of complex system on the basis of experience with another, be it a mathematical model or a physical realization of a complex system e.g., a mouse.

Complexity theory explores systems in which many independent agents are interacting with each other in many ways. Complexity is somehow related to the various manifestations of life. There is something fundamentally unique about the dynamics of living systems. A complex system is one in which numerous independent elements continuously interact and spontaneously organize and reorganize themselves into more and more elaborate structures over time (as evolution has reorganized gene networks and gene regulation resulting in different and more complex species). Complex systems tend to give rise to new complex systems. The complex dynamical regime is believed to be favored under evolutionary adaptation because periodic dynamics are too simple for evolutionary innovation, and chaotic dynamics too unpredictable to support adaptation. The causes and effects of the events that a complex system experiences are not proportional to each other. The different parts of complex systems are linked and affect one another in a synergistic manner.

Complex systems are made up of a large number of interacting parts that affect one another. Complex systems also display a hierarchy of parts. Human society is composed of different populations of humans, which are composed of tissues or organs, which are made of cells, which are made of molecules, which are made of atoms, which are composed of elementary particles. Each level builds on the previous and complexity increases with each level. One cannot predict what happens at a level higher than the one that is being studied. (This does not contradict reductionism. When we speak of complex

systems we are by definition speaking of a system whose whole is greater than the sum of its parts.) Complexity also increases as size increases and as the number of different cells increases. The behavior at one level does not predict the behavior at another. For example: Water is simply two hydrogen atoms attached to one oxygen atom; it can be described exactly by the laws of physics (reductionism). But there is nothing in those laws that predict what the compound will do when zillions of them combine. Liquidity, the name given to the properties of water, is emergent. The fact that water changes (forms phase transitions) when cooled or heated, has meaning only when water is present as billions of atoms not as one compound. Weather (hurricane or tornadoes forming), life (from DNA and proteins), and mind are also emergent. The universe is a hierarchy where at each level complexity new properties emerge. Psychology is not applied biology nor biology applied chemistry, nor chemistry applied physics.

 

http://http://www.curedisease.com/complexity.pdf

[freeztar]

Some of it is, which part of the post do you think is conjecture.

 

These parts...

 

Cannabis for instance is the wizard of the plant kingdom. It produces a cannabinoid, a set of molecules specifically produced within all mammals. The end result is a kinder gentler, but more sophisticated manipulation. Lets say a prehistoric Himalayan goat after a day of munching in a cannabis patch, way up in the mountains, returns to his goat liar to sleep it off. The next day the goat has retained the pleasant memory of dinner the day before but forgets where the hell the patch was.

This ability to create a fog of forgetfulness around it regulates its consumption, dispersal of seeds, ratio more efficiently, and just as in other beneficial plants it is has reaped the benefits of domestication.

This is to all the pot heads out there. Next time you wake up after a night of indulging, and you cant seem to remember where you put your stash. Just remember your weed is actuality hiding from you.

 

So the major reason these plants have so many genes is because they are utilizing the abilities of other life though sophisticated chemical relationships.

 

It causes me (and I imagine others) distress because you speak so matter-of-factly without giving support to your arguments. This is not the philosophy forum, it is the biology forum. While conjecturing may be useful to brainstorm a biological hypothesis, conjecture is not explanatory. Saying a statement like "the major reason these plants have so many genes is because they are utilizing the abilities of other life though sophisticated chemical relationships" requires some scientific support. Can you back up these claims? If not, then I urge you to keep such discussion within the philosophy forum.

[Thunderbird]

Are you sure?

 

 

recent work on deep brain stimulation shows we don't forget as much as you think.

Deep brain stimulation opens memory floodgates:

Mind Hacks: Deep brain stimulation opens memory floodgates

Deep stimulation 'boosts memory'

BBC NEWS | Health | Deep stimulation 'boosts memory'

It appears that these, evolutionary older parts of the brain, have a role in storing memories previously unknown.

The effects of TCH receptors have to be more complex than a 'brain wash" surely?

 

 

You may find this interesting

 

Genetic "Telepathy"? A bizarre new property of DNA

 

Journal of Physical Chemistry B

 

Scientists are reporting evidence that intact, double-stranded DNA has the "amazing" ability to recognize similarities in other DNA strands from a distance. And then like friends with similar interests, the bits of genetic material hangout or congregate together. The recognition - of similar sequences in DNA's chemical subunits - occurs in a way once regarded as impossible, the researchers suggest in a study scheduled for the Jan. 31 issue of ACS' Journal of Physical Chemistry B.

 

Geoff S. Baldwin, Sergey Leikin, John M. Seddon, and Alexei A. Kornyshev and colleagues say the homology recognition between sequences of several hundred nucleotides occurs without physical contact or presence of proteins, factors once regarded as essential for the phenomenon. This recognition may help increase the accuracy and efficiency of the homologous recombination of genes - a process responsible for DNA repair, evolution, and genetic diversity. The new findings thus may shed light on ways to avoid recombination errors, which underpin cancer, aging, and other health problems.

 

In the study, scientists observed the behavior of fluorescently tagged DNA strands placed in water that contained no proteins or other material that could interfere with the experiment. Strands with identical nucleotide sequences were about twice as likely to gather together as DNA strands with different sequences. "Amazingly, the forces responsible for the sequence recognition can reach across more than one nanometer of water separating the surfaces of the nearest neighbor DNA," said the authors. - AD

 

ARTICLE: "DNA Double Helices Recognize Mutual Sequence Homology in a Protein Free Environment"

 

CONTACT: Geoff S. Baldwin, Ph.D.

Imperial College of London

London, U.K.

Sergey Leikin, Ph.D.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland 20892

 

 

By By Jenny Barchfield

 

PARIS - Critics who praise the "complexity" of red Burgundy and Champagne are on target.

 

A team of French and Italian researchers has mapped the genome of the pinot noir grape, used to make bubbly and many red wines from France's Burgundy region and around the world — and it has about 30,000 genes in its DNA. That's more than the human genome, which contains some 20,000 to 25,000 genes.

 

The team published its findings in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, saying it identified the nearly half a billion chemical building blocks of the grape's DNA. Certain sequences of these building blocks form genes, like letters spelling words.

[Thunderbird]

Please support these claims with links and references.

 

 

Ther have been cases were persons do not have a fuctioning Endocannabinoid system ,and have gone mad because they cannot froget anything mundane. No event had any more importance than any other.

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Memory

Mice treated with tetrahydrocannabinol show suppression of long-term potentiation in the hippocampus - a process that is essential for the formation and storage of long-term memory[20]. These results concur with anecdotal evidence suggesting that smoked preparations of Cannabis Sativa attentuates short-term memory[21]. Indeed, mice without the CB1 receptor show enhanced memory and long-term potentiation indicating that the endocannabinoid system may play a pivotal role in the extinction of old memories. Interestingly, recent research reported in a 2005 Journal Of Clinical Investigation article[22] indicate that the high-dose treatment of rats with the synthetic cannabinoid, HU-210 over a period of a few weeks resulted in stimulation of neural growth in the rats' hippocampus region, a part of the limbic system playing a part in the formation of declarative and spatial memories.

[Thunderbird]

These parts...

 

 

Saying a statement like "the major reason these plants have so many genes is because they are utilizing the abilities of other life though sophisticated chemical relationships" requires some scientific support. Can you back up these claims? If not, then I urge you to keep such discussion within the philosophy forum.

 

 

If the disparity is aprox 4.7% of DNA between producer/plant and consumer/animal, and the plant is using that same degree or more of genes to accommodate this relationship, this conjecture is a very reasonable one to accept.

[Michaelangelica]

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).

You would apply the word and process "cognition" to non living organisms?

In evolutionary-biology terms where do you think it begins?

neural growth in the rats' hippocampus region, a part of the limbic system playing a part in the formation of declarative and spatial memories.

Interesting that that was the hypothalamus was being stimulated in the deep brain experiments/accidents.

Both are very much older areas (evolutionary speaking) of the human brain than the cerebral cortex. Thanks for the reference.

It would be very hard to prove that old memories have been extinguished as you would need to remember them first- then forget that you remembered them.(??) Am I applying too much Irish logic here?

 

Neurosurgeons often 'navigate' around the brain by stimulating areas of the brain and asking what the patient is feeling, seeing or remembering. I am sure many remember things via this process that they thought they had forgotten.

So too, hypnosis is supposed to be a helpful tool to get detail in memory or to aid remembrance.

[freeztar]

If...blah blah blah...this conjecture is a very reasonable one to accept.

 

Do you see the problem with this?

You are supporting conjecture with conjecture, again without any support from outside, credible sources. The "Rules of the Land" do not condone such activity and a lack of adherence to these basic rules can result in infractions which may potentially impede your posting abilities here.

 

I do hope you change your ways TB.

[Eclogite]

No, not in the way you think, life, and consciousness, are just pre-existing properties that manifest though complex self organizing principals inherent in the universe.

I am a strong advocate of of the role of emergent properties in the development of the universe. Nevertheless your statement makes little sense to me. Perhaps you can elaborate.

Let me detail my confusion. Life may well be inherent in the properties of the Universe. That is to say, the character of the Universe, its composition and laws, lead naturally to the emergence of life. But that certainly does not mean life is present from the first: show me the life five seconds after the Big Bang; show me consciousness as the first generation stars are born.

If these emergent properties are inherent, which carries with it a suggestion of inevitability, then this view also has a strong teleological bias. I am not opposed to this, nor convinced by it. Your apprent view does require acknowledgement of that teleological tendency. I do not understand why you are denying it.

Looking forward to your clarification.

O.

[Michaelangelica]

Well I just had to look up 'teleological" so I foolishly weigh in, after coming to the thread a bit late.

 

What about the other universe? The one (s?) next to the one that exploded?

 

Don't you find increasing complexity of life (as a biologist?) from single cell organisms to a small collection like a volvox and then increasing specialisation of cells etc.

There is certainly demonstrateable organisation in life.

How could you prove such organisation was inevitable?

Perhaps when we create life in some boffin's fish tank?

 

Is there any way of proving that life is inevitable process starting with a "big bang"-if it happened?

It is unlikely that 'life as we know it-Jim'-sorry could not resist) existed in a millisecond after the BB; but all the chemicals needed seem to have appeared VERY shortly afterward.

How could we know?

Isn't the best Earth fossil we have, a teenage, 4.5 Billion years?(Now retired and living in Western Australia ;))

 

Or am I just missing the point here entirely?

 

I am unused to the word 'cognition' and 'consciousness' being used out side a medical/psychological model of man and maybe higher animals.

[Pyrotex]

You may find this interesting

..."Amazingly, the forces responsible for the sequence recognition can reach across more than one nanometer of water separating the surfaces of the nearest neighbor DNA," said the authors....

Poppycock and balderdash.

"Amazingly"????

Absolutely not.

One nanometer is comparable to the diameter of an atom. One single atom.

For all practical intents and purposes, two DNA strands separated by only one nanometer, are essentially touching. Their electrical fields are already interlaced at that distance.

[Eclogite]

Disclaimer: I believe the rejection of teleology by science in the latter part of the 19th century may turn out to be one of its greatest blunders. To reject teleologicall explanations automatically when they could represent a possible (plausible) explanation for phenomena seems to me to be unscientific. I argue for a more open minded approach in this regard. I fully recognise that this flies fully in the face of conventional 21st century science; I am not claiming that a teleological explanation for the universe, or aspects of it is valid; I do not normally take a teleologically based stance when engaging in discussion, or providing explanations on this forum. Nevertheless, Thunderbird's position seems to be one in which teleology plays a role. To properly understand his position I see a need to explore that aspect. I want to avoid the possibility that my own open minded stance on this could be misinterpreted by any reader as a wholehearted endorsement of, or commitment to a belief that the vast majority of scientists would consider flawed.

What about the other universe? The one (s?) next to the one that exploded?

If there are an infinite number of universes, either simultaneous or sequential, the issue of teleology is practically eliminated. At present the multiverse is speculative and so a teleological interpretation of the universe remains a potentially viable one.

Don't you find increasing complexity of life (as a biologist?) from single cell organisms to a small collection like a volvox and then increasing specialisation of cells etc.

(I am not a biologist, though I have studied biology and palaeontology at undergraduate level, and am presently trying to deepen and broaden my education in the field through study [and participation in fora such as these].)

The majority of life on this planet is not complex. Most of it is single celled. Most consists of prokaryotes. (Obviously any form of life is pretty damn complex, but in comparison with more complex forms, most life is decidedly simple.) For example, there are more bacterial cells in your body than there are of your own.

Yet some complexity exists. The fact that we are having this discussion is proof of that. A simple organism, through the normal evolutionary processes, may become simpler, or it may become more complex. There is some minimum level of complexity below which it will not be viable. Consequently, there will be a tendency over time for some life to become more complex. The greater the passage of time, the more complex some examples of this will be.

 

However, for this complexity to arise biochemistry must be predisposed to permit it. This predisposition is either the result of chance - in which case the emergence of complexity is a sideshow, of interest to us only because we are one of its end products - or, it is intimately bound to the fundamental laws and character of the universe - in which case complexity is central to the development of the universe. (The latter carries strong teleological implications.)

How could you prove such organisation was inevitable?

Is there any way of proving that life is inevitable process starting with a "big bang"-if it happened?

Remember proof is rarely achievable in science: all we can do is build up the probabilities in favour of some particular interpretation.

There are a startlingly large number of chracterisitics of the universe that suggest these emergent properties are inevitable. (Start with Henderson's The Fitness of the Environement in 1913(?), or the work of Paul Davies of Melbourne University (?), or Steve Kaufmann at the Santa Fe Institute.)

It is unlikely that 'life as we know it-Jim'-sorry could not resist) existed in a millisecond after the BB; but all the chemicals needed seem to have appeared VERY shortly afterward.

Not exactly true. Hydrogen and helium appeared - and a very, very small quantity of lithium(?), but nothing else. Now atoms themselves are emergent properties of the early universe - after all that is why we no longer consider them fundamental particles.

But set that aside. The other chemicals on which life depends had to be manufacured in the hearts of stars. Hoyle demonstrated what a remarkably fortuitous tuning of the nuclear processes allowed the formation of carbon, and hence the other heavier elements.

How could we know?

By continuing to make observations with an open mind and by investigating the character of mechanisms by which all forms of complexity - biological and non-biological - arise.

[Thunderbird]

Let me detail my confusion. Life may well be inherent in the properties of the Universe. That is to say, the character of the Universe, its composition and laws, lead naturally to the emergence of life. But that certainly does not mean life is present from the first: show me the life five seconds after the Big Bang; show me consciousness as the first generation stars are born.

If these emergent properties are inherent, which carries with it a suggestion of inevitability, then this view also has a strong teleological bias. I am not opposed to this, nor convinced by it. Your apprent view does require acknowledgement of that teleological tendency. I do not understand why you are denying it.

Looking forward to your clarification.

O.

 

 

 

I did not say that, I said this " life, and consciousness, are just pre-existing properties that manifest though complex self organizing principals inherent in the universe."

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird.... Not:)

If...blah blah blah...this conjecture is a very reasonable one to accept.

 

Do you see the problem with this?

.

 

 

Yea I do, This is what I really said...

 

If the disparity is aprox 4.7% of DNA between producer/plant and consumer/animal, and the plant is using that same degree or more of genes to accommodate this relationship, this conjecture is a very reasonable one to accept.

[Michaelangelica]

Poppycock and balderdash.

"Amazingly"????

Absolutely not.

One nanometer is comparable to the diameter of an atom. One single atom.

For all practical intents and purposes, two DNA strands separated by only one nanometer, are essentially touching. Their electrical fields are already interlaced at that distance.

Divided by 10 maybe.

"The diameter of an atom ranges from about 0.1 to 0.5 nanometer."

Diameter of an Atom

the smallest atom is helium with a radius of 32 pm, while one of the largest is caesium at 225 pm.[57] These dimensions are thousands of times smaller than the wavelengths of light (400–700 nm)

Atom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Eclogite

thank you, I stand corrected on life chemicals appearing "shortly" after the big bang.

Instead, they would collapse to form galaxies and stars, starting from about two billion years after the Big Bang.

. . .

and would have burnt the original hydrogen and helium, into heavier elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and iron. This could have taken only a few hundred million years.

Professor Stephen Hawking

Time since BB 15 billion years?

So chemicals for life appeared about 12-13 billion years ago?

So today's Universe is about 70% hydrogen, 28% helium and all the other atoms make up about 2%

. (Great Moments in Science - Ripples in the Big Bang 3 (rpt))

 

BTW the above talk from Steven Hawking probably supports everyone talking here. Although it is a bit dated in a couple of respects.

He has something to say about the unlikely appearance of life, complexity and the multi-universe theory.

I think everyone can quote him to support their point of view.:)

[freeztar]

Yea I do, This is what I really said...

 

Where do you get 4.7% from?

[Thunderbird]

Where do you get 4.7% from?

 

 

 

It is a estimate of the disparity between dna# of animal and insect genes to the ratio plant genes. From the scant data, Plant have aprox 4-5% more genes. It is impossible to have a precise number since we have not mapped out the entire natural genome. Considering the plant has to code for fruit, seeds, flowers, toxins, all the extra code to accommodate the relationship between the animal and insect. It is not unreasonable that without these co evolutionary relationships plant Dna# would fall below the average animal-insect Dna#.

 

 

:msn::msn::tree::cup:

:):):bloom::bloom::::msn::rolleyes:

[freeztar]

It is a estimate of the disparity between dna# of animal and insect genes to the ratio plant genes. From the scant data, Plant have aprox 4-5% more genes.

 

From what data? Provide sources for your statements (especially ones like 4.7%) or do not make them.

Considering the plant has to code for fruit, seeds, flowers, toxins, all the extra code to accommodate the relationship between the animal and insect. It is not unreasonable that without these co evolutionary relationships plant Dna# would fall below the average animal-insect Dna#.

This is heresay without supporting evidence. There are many more factors to consider. Viruses are a major factor to consider. Evolutionary timeline is a major factor.

 

Please provide sources for your "data" or refrain from making unsupported claims.