Jump to content
Science Forums

Darwin and Evolution


Recommended Posts

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.

 

Your confusion will continue unless you begin to understand that there are profound differences between; Intrinsic Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; Properties, that have to do with physics and complexity, and the philosophy of teleology.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I remain very uncomfortable with your use of terminology. It creates ambiguities.More evolved implies that the later forms are better than the former. In the context of evolution better has little mea

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. :hy

Good questions Kayra. I think you'll find this article a great read and it should answer some of your questions. :lol:   Annals of Science: Darwin’s Surprise: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

:crying: The real game here Thunderbird is that we (i.e. the forum admins and mods) require a scientific discussion be conducted in a scientific manner. Mindful of the range of talents and backgrounds who post here we shall be very lenient with the novices. However, someone who claims to be well founded in the sciences - for who else would be presumptuous enough to present new theories - is expected to be aware of how a scientific discussion should be conducted. You have frequently not followed accepted guidelines and then have become upset when called to account.

Please reflect on this so we may proceed without the bickering.

 

 

 

 

What I have posted are not new theories, merely evolution seen though the lens of complexity, and self organizing principals.

 

The below are some of my post in question, if you would like, we can have a discussion on those subject since Reason has taken a pass. You game ? :0353:

 

P.S. Reason as in the sheep,:) not in the ability to think.:doh:

1. "It is not suitability, as much as adaptability and adaptability is dependent on genetic complexity." - Post #16

 

2. "If not for the increase in complexity evolution would not take place." - Post #23

 

3. "Genetic complexity can be applied to the genome in its self, or to the variety of species that it gives rise to though genetic drift. In this contexts, complexity would be defined as the opposite of homogeneity." - Post # 25

:)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Your confusion will continue unless you begin to understand that there are profound differences between; Intrinsic Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; Properties, that have to do with physics and complexity, and the philosophy of teleology.:)
I can certainly recognise the difference between intrinsic, an adjective, and properties, a noun. Consequently the signal to noise ratio on your message becomes too weak to permit understanding.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I Remember reading something similar. Though this wasn’t the original source I read, I suspect we’re both recalling reports of ca. 2006 experiments by Mark Ferguson and others originally published in the 2/2006 Current Biology article “The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant” (full article available to guests via links).

You may be right. My source was second hand too.

This is a copy of my post # 49 from "Darwin re-visited" thread

Re: Darwin re-visited - 07-22-2006, 02:50 PM

Thankyou for making me go back and re-read what I thought I knew about Darwin and genetics.

(However I will be more careful in future about throw-away lines. You don't get away with them on hypography)

 

As a result, of this thread, I have just read a most fascinating book that turns on its head most of what I thought I knew about how life develops.

It is called "The Dependent Gene" by a professor of psychology Dr. David S Moore

 

Very briefly his thesis is that all traits- even apparently straightforward ones like eye and hair colour- are caused by very complex interactions between genes and the environment at every stage of biological and psychological development.

 

He rejects the idea that genes set parameters -which the environment fills out - completely

He cites a lot of amazing genetic research

Twin studies, the gold-standard in the nature/nurture debate when I studied psychology, he calls into question completely

He says identical twins are a myth. I was fascinated to read his accounts of in eutro development for twins. It is so complex and intricate. Few twins (30%?)are actually born in the one amniotic sac

 

He argues, convincingly,that the appearance of a given trait is not pre-determined by our genes; but by a very complex and amazing interaction between genes and their environment

 

One study in particular amazed me.

When a chick embryo is a few layers wide; it is known which cells will produce a beak. If you replace the cells UNDERNEATH the beak cells with a mammals cells from a similar position then the chicken will sport a full set of mammalian dentures!

This is despite the fact that the chicken cells that produce the teeth are 100% chicken. It is just being in proximity to the mammalian cells that produces teeth!

"How in the world can this be possible?" he asks. Some biologists explain it by saying genes can lurk unexpressed into our chromosomes for long periods of time, ready to spring into action should factors in their environment suddenly turn them "on".

"It is wrong to assume that there are limitations on a given set of genes before studying their reactions to all possible developmental circumstances."p213

 

"The notion that our genes specify a restricted range of possible developmental outcomes can be of no practical use whatever" p214

 

He says that there is no generally accepted definition of a gene and all the hype in the press about genes to do this or that is just hype. The real story is being found to be far more complex than we ever thought.

(sell your shares in bio-tech companies now!)

 

Fascinating stuff about introns and RNA splicing and e "the spiceosomes in different cells can do different things with the SAME pre-RNA thereby generating two or more different proteins from the code of a single cistron.

Thus spliceosomes can edit a piece of pre RNA, and they can edit this SAME pre RNA in a different cell type to produce an entirely different strand of mature RNA ! p79

Amazingly, cistrons on DNA, too code for immature RNA that can be spliced in different ways in different contexts. . ."

 

Genes, as we usually imagine them, rarely exist in any coherent state in the DNA, waiting to be decoded by automaton like cellular machinery.

Instead, small pieces of DNA-pieces that are not "genes" themselves, because taken individually they do not code for complete functional molecules- are typically mixed matched, and linked to produce various temporary edited RNAs. . .the cellular machinery responsible for this editing is "sensitive" to its context.

 

Such contextual dependence renders untenable the simplistic belief that there are coherent, long -lived entities called "genes" that dictate instructions to cellular machinery that merely constructs the body accordingly.

 

The common belief that genes contain context-independent "information" -and so are analogous to "blueprints" or "recipes"- is simply false' p81

 

He goes on to say that there can be no such thing as a clone.

People who make "clones' like dolly find all sorts of observable differences and personality differences between what should be identical animals.

 

I recommend the book to you.

He does repeat himself over and over but the book contains such an astounding idea that he needs to so that the full implications can begin to set in. This will be a landmark book in evolutionary genetics.

--

On a personal note I have found that pea seeds are fertilised before they are open. So how did Mendel do it and how can I cross my 9 varieties of sweet pea this year?

Are we on the same page or is this different research?

 

I liked your comment about SF.; which I love but I loath horror and avoid it completely (except by reading /looking at, the news !:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some research on the mechanism that leads to the development of complexity in vertebrates.

Evolving complexity out of junk DNA

. . .microRNAs, a class of tiny molecules only recently discovered residing within what has usually been considered 'junk DNA', are hugely diverse in even the most lowly of vertebrates, but relatively few are found in the genomes of our invertebrate relatives.

 

She explained: "There was an explosive increase in the number of new microRNAs added to the genome of vertebrates and this is unparalleled in evolutionary history."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanna jump on in this for a sec...for the past, i dunno, couple of posts theres been bickering about "clarifying" thunderbirds apparent comment. Eco and Thunder...STOP BICKERING :lol: geez you'd think we were dealing with little kids. This is a FORUM where debate is encouraged but you two are taking it a tad far. Please stop the nonsense ok? Let's talk science ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wanna jump on in this for a sec...for the past, i dunno, couple of posts theres been bickering about "clarifying" thunderbirds apparent comment. Eco and Thunder...STOP BICKERING :lol: geez you'd think we were dealing with little kids. This is a FORUM where debate is encouraged but you two are taking it a tad far. Please stop the nonsense ok? Let's talk science ;)
I am sorry you view this as bickering. I genuinely do not understand what Thunderbird is saying. I am genuinely seeking clarification. I do not know what his offer is. I can only conclude that either Thunderbird is being deliberately obtuse, or I am thicker than two short planks.

Since I participate in forums to relax, to become better informed and, on occassion, to share my knowledge with others, and since none of these goals are being achieved in this thread, or in any other thread where Thunderbird's belligerent posturing is evident, I have a simple solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your point. I too find these forums informative, and actually, quite relaxing to find others with many viewpoints that are my own. Let's drop the topic, for this threads original question has been thoroughly answered (i started it as it may be) and i believe we should move on.

 

As long as ppl are subscribed to this thread, let me pose a new question.

 

It would seem that many of us here (with the exception of a very small amount) believe that Evolution holds enough evidence for us to find it true. Kids today are being taught in classrooms throughout the nation the idea of Evolution, but not that it is of any true importance. I find this disturbing, that America cannot come to terms with teaching the subject of Evolution, all because religious doo-hicks find it bad for them (oh my, lets not educate the young in to believing the truth...religion might collapse...i could only hope :lol:).

 

So my question is...any suggestions on how the education system should deal with this? Evolution is by far an important topic, shouldn't schools pursue it's involvement?

 

I leave the floor to you all ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
So my question is...any suggestions on how the education system should deal with this? Evolution is by far an important topic, shouldn't schools pursue it's involvement?

 

This subject has been/is being discussed at great length in the following thread. :lol:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/biology/13837-evolution-must-taught-public-schools.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an excellent article here on the concept of the missing link. Don't know if you'll be able to open it without a subscription, but it mentions that Darwin lamented the paucity of the fossil record that was available at the time. Since then, however, thousands of transitional fossils have been found, and more are found every day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kids today are being taught in classrooms throughout the nation the idea of Evolution, but not that it is of any true importance. I find this disturbing, that America cannot come to terms with teaching the subject of Evolution, all because religious doo-hicks find it bad for them (oh my, lets not educate the young in to believing the truth...religion might collapse...i could only hope :)).

 

So my question is...any suggestions on how the education system should deal with this? Evolution is by far an important topic, shouldn't schools pursue it's involvement?

Though he may not have been entirely, or even moderately, successful, I think Steven Gould was on the right track with his NOMA approach to the conflict between religion and science.

 

As Gould notes, for centuries, some of the best scientists have been devoutly religious, suggesting that religious belief and scientific education are not mutually incompatible. Though some argue that any admission of the legitimacy of non-scientific belief is a concession to religionists seeking to attack science, I believe that effective teaching requires a non-threatening scholastic environment, which attacking a student’s beliefs, rational or otherwise, does not promote. Given a good science education, students will, I believe, tend to reject the extreme, harmful elements of religion, while retaining elements that scientific reason suggest are be beneficial. Some may chose to be atheists, other not, some atheist to be churchgoers and some theist not, but all kinds will, though an understanding of rational thinking including the scientific method, learn an understanding of the value of mutual respect and acceptance.

 

At the same time, I believe theists and atheists alike should speak against a central, unsound idea which I believe underlies not only religious attacks on science, but non-religious pseudo-scientific attacks on science, and even scientific attacks on religion. That idea is the idea that children can be harmed by exposure to ideas, and thus must be cloistered away from them. Studying evolutionary biology will not hurt a student, nor will studying Christianity, or Islam, or Scientology or Satanism or Wicca or New Age mysticism. Scholarship fails due to a lack of exposure to ideas, not an excess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As long as ppl are subscribed to this thread, let me pose a new question.

 

It would seem that many of us here (with the exception of a very small amount) believe that Evolution holds enough evidence for us to find it true. Kids today are being taught in classrooms throughout the nation the idea of Evolution, but not that it is of any true importance. I find this disturbing, that America cannot come to terms with teaching the subject of Evolution, all because religious doo-hicks find it bad for them (oh my, lets not educate the young in to believing the truth...religion might collapse...i could only hope :)).

 

So my question is...any suggestions on how the education system should deal with this? Evolution is by far an important topic, shouldn't schools pursue it's involvement?

 

I leave the floor to you all :)

I don't see that evolution has to be opposed to Christianity

So God said 'let there be life' and there was, one cell.

Can't we endow the creator with a bit more intelligence and disregard for time than allowed for in the bible?

To treat the Bible as the literal word of God borders on insanity

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...