More about how evolution works (Evolution)
My thanks yet again to David, who has posted two items on fruit flies and guppies which once more raise the question of how evolution works.-Re fruit flies: QUOTE: “.....this finding opens up a whole new set of questions about how animals behave and react to their environments."-David's comment: This looks like a learned behaviour that became an instinct. Family planning with food source.-I would put this on a par with other “nature's wonders” which in the past you have attributed to divine planning. Like the parasitic wasp, the weaverbird's nest, the monarch's lifestyle etc., it must have started somewhere. Perhaps this “learned behaviour” stems from experiments which worked, and so the successful “wonder” is passed on and becomes the way things are done (a bit like our traditions and conventions). The premise would be that fruit flies are not machines but thinking beings, and they use whatever materials are at their disposal to investigate ways in which they can best cope with the environment. Whatever works stays (natural selection).-Re guppies: QUOTE : "Our research shows that these fish adapted to their new habitats in less than one year, or three to four generations, which is even faster than we previously thought,” said Gordon...-QUOTE: “'People think of evolution as historical. They don't think of it as something that's happening under our nose. It is a contemporary process. People are skeptical; they don't believe in evolution because they can't see it. Here, we see it. We can see if something makes you better able to make babies and live longer,” Reznick said.-David's comment: No question that random chance mutation/natural selection occurs, as above, but it is not present enough to drive evolution in the time scales we know.-I agree with you, but would stress that the two quotes above only concern adaptation and not innovation, which is why people think of evolution as historical: nobody has observed or can explain innovation, whereas the guppies are still guppies. However, adaptation may hold the key to innovation. If we are sceptical of the notion that God preplanned the guppy's every possible response to every possible environmental change, or personally intervened to enable it to adapt, we are left with the hypothesis that the cell communities within the guppy make all the necessary adjustments. They are confronted with a new problem, they process the information that comes to them from outside, and they communicate and cooperate with one another in working out how to deal with it. These are manifestations of intelligence. And once you attribute intelligence to organisms, you open up the possibility that as well as adapting, they may also be capable of innovating.
More about how evolution works
by David Turell 
, Tuesday, October 13, 2015, 14:40 (3115 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: My thanks yet again to David, who has posted two items on fruit flies and guppies which once more raise the question of how evolution works. > > Re fruit flies: QUOTE: “.....this finding opens up a whole new set of questions about how animals behave and react to their environments." > > David's comment: This looks like a learned behaviour that became an instinct. Family planning with food source. > > dhw: The premise would be that fruit flies are not machines but thinking beings, and they use whatever materials are at their disposal to investigate ways in which they can best cope with the environment. Whatever works stays (natural selection).-Good definition of natural selection. Remember that fruit flies now do this behaviour automatically as an instinct. I can't tell with certainty how it came about. The first male to do it might have said: "great, I can eat, and might as well get a sex partner to enjoy the feast with me". Others followed and it became instinct.-> David's comment: No question that random chance mutation/natural selection occurs, as above, but it is not present enough to drive evolution in the time scales we know. > > dhw: I agree with you, but would stress that the two quotes above only concern adaptation and not innovation, ....However, adaptation may hold the key to innovation. If we are sceptical of the notion that God preplanned... we are left with the hypothesis that the cell communities within the guppy make all the necessary adjustments. They are confronted with a new problem, they process the information that comes to them from outside, and they communicate and cooperate with one another in working out how to deal with it. These are manifestations of intelligence. And once you attribute intelligence to organisms, you open up the possibility that as well as adapting, they may also be capable of innovating.-All we know is that their genome is capable of methylating at appropriate spots, using intelligent information in their genome. The rest is inference, and we don't even know how the methylation process originally appeared in evolution. We can recognize the code contains information, and my choice for source is God.
More about how evolution works; stasis
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 13, 2015, 22:25 (3115 days ago) @ David Turell
Many species remain the same for hundreds of millions of years. We do know complex organisms become more complex, but stasis and punctuated equilibrium are present also:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/10/stasis_when_lif100011.html-"An evolutionary biologist at the University of Oslo, Kjetil Lysne Voje, offers an explanation for stasis:-The most wide-spread explanation is stabilising selection. It suggests that the advantage for a species which is already well adapted to its environment will be to avoid changing much. It is a type of natural selection that favours the average individuals in a population because changes are disadvantageous. Changes are a drawback and stabilising selection will discard deviations from the well-functioning norm.-"'Stabilising selection is a very good explanation for stasis, as it helps a species remain unchanged. But it has some problems, as it is hard to conceive of an optimal form that would not change in the course of millions of years," says Voje."-Comment. Voje is struggling for an answer that sounds real. We know the Earth has had enormous changes as evidenced by hot periods ( palms in the Arctic), glacial periods, and continental drift, and so many species show no change. they arrive full-blown and disappear millions of years later looking the same, or are still here laughing at us because we do not understand the process of evolution
More about how evolution works; stasis
DAVID: Many species remain the same for hundreds of millions of years. We do know complex organisms become more complex, but stasis and punctuated equilibrium are present also:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/10/stasis_when_lif100011.html-QUOTE: "An evolutionary biologist at the University of Oslo, Kjetil Lysne Voje, offers an explanation for stasis: The most wide-spread explanation is stabilising selection. It suggests that the advantage for a species which is already well adapted to its environment will be to avoid changing much. [...] 'Stabilising selection is a very good explanation for stasis, as it helps a species remain unchanged. But it has some problems, as it is hard to conceive of an optimal form that would not change in the course of millions of years," says Voje."-This is hardly an explanation of stasis: it merely tells us that stasis occurs because it enables things to stay the same. We call it stasis BECAUSE things stay the same! Why would an “optimal form” change? It may need to adapt (bacteria are a prime example), but that's all. The mystery is not stasis but innovation, and this might well happen if there are changes in the environment that allow for improvement. That doesn't mean innovations will always happen when the environment changes, and why should we expect it to? Each innovation has to take place within individual organisms, and that will require exceptional individuals. Once the “invention” works, it establishes itself, and if it's optimal, it won't change (= stasis). DAVID: Comment. Voje is struggling for an answer that sounds real. We know the Earth has had enormous changes as evidenced by hot periods ( palms in the Arctic), glacial periods, and continental drift, and so many species show no change. they arrive full-blown and disappear millions of years later looking the same, or are still here laughing at us because we do not understand the process of evolution. -“...and so many species show no change” is not really logical: if the environment changes, you would expect species to change, and in many cases they do - the biggest change being that they die! Others, however, adapt. The mystery is why new species arrive. See above.
More about how evolution works; stasis
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 14, 2015, 15:42 (3114 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:The mystery is not stasis but innovation, and this might well happen if there are changes in the environment that allow for improvement. That doesn't mean innovations will always happen when the environment changes, and why should we expect it to? Each innovation has to take place within individual organisms, and that will require exceptional individuals. Once the “invention” works, it establishes itself, and if it's optimal, it won't change (= stasis).-All we know is environmental changes cause modifications, which are reversible when the environment changes again. We do not know how complexity advances, as in the appearance of humans, and also illustrated by the non-change in bacterial complexity. > > DAVID: Comment. Voje is struggling for an answer that sounds real. We know the Earth has had enormous changes as evidenced by hot periods ( palms in the Arctic), glacial periods, and continental drift, and so many species show no change. they arrive full-blown and disappear millions of years later looking the same, or are still here laughing at us because we do not understand the process of evolution. > > > dhw: “...and so many species show no change” is not really logical: if the environment changes, you would expect species to change, and in many cases they do - the biggest change being that they die! Others, however, adapt. The mystery is why new species arrive. See above.-We've had glacial periods, hot periods, etc, and species survive unchanged. They must be perfectly adapted to total survival. This does not explain increasing complexity which must be a very specialized process, relegated to only certain groups of organisms. Smells of a designed evolutionary plan.
More about how evolution works; stasis
dhw: Why would an "optimal form" change? It may need to adapt (bacteria are a prime example), but that's all. The mystery is not stasis but innovation, and this might well happen if there are changes in the environment that allow for improvement. That doesn't mean innovations will always happen when the environment changes, and why should we expect it to? Each innovation has to take place within individual organisms, and that will require exceptional individuals. Once the “invention” works, it establishes itself, and if it's optimal, it won't change (= stasis).-DAVID: All we know is environmental changes cause modifications, which are reversible when the environment changes again. We do not know how complexity advances, as in the appearance of humans, and also illustrated by the non-change in bacterial complexity. [...] We've had glacial periods, hot periods, etc, and species survive unchanged. They must be perfectly adapted to total survival. This does not explain increasing complexity which must be a very specialized process, relegated to only certain groups of organisms. Smells of a designed evolutionary plan.-There is no disagreement here. You are repeating my own arguments in your own words: "environmental changes cause modifications" = adapt; “how complexity advances”, “increasing complexity” = my “innovations”; “very specialized process” and “certain groups of organisms” = my “exceptional individuals”. The only difference between us is your insistence on “a designed evolutionary plan”, whereas I would argue that the whole process smells of organisms doing their own thing.
More about how evolution works; stasis
by David Turell , Friday, October 16, 2015, 01:47 (3113 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: There is no disagreement here. You are repeating my own arguments in your own words: "environmental changes cause modifications" = adapt; “how complexity advances”, “increasing complexity” = my “innovations”; “very specialized process” and “certain groups of organisms” = my “exceptional individuals”. The only difference between us is your insistence on “a designed evolutionary plan”, whereas I would argue that the whole process smells of organisms doing their own thing.-Your smell concludes that some organisms are satisfied to stay the same and others are discontent with their life and therefore complexify. Sounds like a scattershot method of evolution to me. Monkeys decided on their own, starting 22-24 million years ago to become human, so over time they did it, from no obvious reasonable challenges from the then existing environment as known to us.-Please see my entry on Koonin.
More about how evolution works; stasis
dhw: There is no disagreement here. You are repeating my own arguments in your own words: "environmental changes cause modifications" = adapt; “how complexity advances”, “increasing complexity” = my “innovations”; “very specialized process” and “certain groups of organisms” = my “exceptional individuals”. The only difference between us is your insistence on “a designed evolutionary plan”, whereas I would argue that the whole process smells of organisms doing their own thing.-DAVID: Your smell concludes that some organisms are satisfied to stay the same and others are discontent with their life and therefore complexify. Sounds like a scattershot method of evolution to me. -Yes, I am challenging your attempt to read God's mind by assuming that he planned everything for the sake of humans - a hypothesis that simply doesn't fit in with the “scattershot” history of evolution. Instead I am suggesting that this history can be explained by the fact that some organisms adapt to changing conditions, others fail and so die out, and others find their own ways of exploiting new conditions and “complexifying", as dictated by their individual ability to master changing conditions, and not by some overriding anthropocentric purpose. -DAVID: Monkeys decided on their own, starting 22-24 million years ago to become human, so over time they did it, from no obvious reasonable challenges from the then existing environment as known to us.-They didn't say to themselves, “I'm gonna make myself human”. But they found new ways of exploiting conditions, just as every single innovation from bacteria onwards must in some way have proceeded from the drive to improvement, as opposed to the need for adaptation. The latter is a response to challenges from the environment, whereas improvement is a response to opportunities offered by the environment. DAVID: Please see my entry on Koonin.-The basis of it all is endosymbiosis. Lynn Margulis was a pioneer in this field, and she believed in the intelligent cell.
More about how evolution works; stasis
by David Turell , Friday, October 16, 2015, 14:44 (3112 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Yes, I am challenging your attempt to read God's mind by assuming that he planned everything for the sake of humans - a hypothesis that simply doesn't fit in with the “scattershot” history of evolution. Instead I am suggesting that this history can be explained by the fact that some organisms adapt to changing conditions, others fail and so die out, and others find their own ways of exploiting new conditions and “complexifying", as dictated by their individual ability to master changing conditions, and not by some overriding anthropocentric purpose.-And a large number never advance at all. They don't fit the Darwin proposal of adapt or die, which you are proposing. > > DAVID: Monkeys decided on their own, starting 22-24 million years ago to become human, so over time they did it, from no obvious reasonable challenges from the then existing environment as known to us. > > dhw: They didn't say to themselves, “I'm gonna make myself human”. But they found new ways of exploiting conditions, just as every single innovation from bacteria onwards must in some way have proceeded from the drive to improvement, as opposed to the need for adaptation. The latter is a response to challenges from the environment, whereas improvement is a response to opportunities offered by the environment.-This is the same response that you made above. It doesn't explain broad evidence of stasis, such as 250 million years of unchanged trilobites or 70 million year-old unchanged coelacanths. To me this is a strong sign of planned advances, such as 22 million years of monkeys to humans and the monkeys still exist unchanged. Why a complexity push only here and there? > > DAVID: Please see my entry on Koonin. > > The basis of it all is endosymbiosis. Lynn Margulis was a pioneer in this field, and she believed in the intelligent cell.-And I believe in intelligent information running the cells. I will stick 100% to my side of the 50/50.
More about how evolution works; stasis
dhw: I am suggesting that this [“scattershot”] history can be explained by the fact that some organisms adapt to changing conditions, others fail and so die out, and others find their own ways of exploiting new conditions and “complexifying", as dictated by their individual ability to master changing conditions, and not by some overriding anthropocentric purpose.-DAVID: And a large number never advance at all. They don't fit the Darwin proposal of adapt or die, which you are proposing.-This doesn't make sense to me. If conditions don't change, organisms don't need to adapt; if conditions change, either organisms can still cope, or they adapt, or they die (even if adaptation simply means migrating). Advancement comes from innovation, not adaptation.-Dhw: [...] every single innovation from bacteria onwards must in some way have proceeded from the drive to improvement, as opposed to the need for adaptation. The latter is a response to challenges from the environment, whereas improvement is a response to opportunities offered by the environment.-DAVID: This is the same response that you made above. It doesn't explain broad evidence of stasis, such as 250 million years of unchanged trilobites or 70 million year-old unchanged coelacanths. To me this is a strong sign of planned advances, such as 22 million years of monkeys to humans and the monkeys still exist unchanged. Why a complexity push only here and there?-Stasis doesn't need explaining. If organisms have reached what your author called an “optimal” state, they don't need to change. They will go on living until there is a change in conditions to which they are unable to adapt. Once again, innovation is the phenomenon that requires explanation: i.e. individual organisms finding the ability to do something new in a given environment, as a result of which their own physical structure changes. Earlier I suggested the emergence of dry land as an example: some aquatic creatures will stay in the water, but others will explore the new environment, and their cell communities will cooperate to restructure themselves. Similarly, most monkeys may have stayed in the trees, but at some point others (perhaps through a change in their own local conditions) may have decided to come down and explore the plains. “May have”, because nobody knows. Why a complexity push only here and there? Because all innovations must take place in individual organisms, and just as individual humans come up with new ideas “here and there”, so did other organisms throughout the history of evolution. DAVID: Please see my entry on Koonin. dhw: The basis of it all is endosymbiosis. Lynn Margulis was a pioneer in this field, and she believed in the intelligent cell. DAVID: And I believe in intelligent information running the cells. I will stick 100% to my side of the 50/50.-And I will stick to the infinitely more logical division of 50% to 50%.
More about how evolution works; stasis
by David Turell , Saturday, October 17, 2015, 22:23 (3111 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Stasis doesn't need explaining. If organisms have reached what your author called an “optimal” state, they don't need to change. They will go on living until there is a change in conditions to which they are unable to adapt.-Your statement is correct, if one makes the assumption that the Earth never changes, but it is changing all the time. We know that 90% of everything that ever lived is now extinct. So ancient forms that never change are most unusual.-> dhw: Once again, innovation is the phenomenon that requires explanation: i.e. individual organisms finding the ability to do something new in a given environment, as a result of which their own physical structure changes.-Under our current state of knowledge innovation is not explained. It is probable that changes of environment cause adaptations. This is well known as epigenetic alterations. We do not know if it leads to speciation, which is what you are tying to imply. And it is just as possible that innovation is produced by God's plan.-> dhw: Earlier I suggested the emergence of dry land as an example: some aquatic creatures will stay in the water, but others will explore the new environment, and their cell communities will cooperate to restructure themselves. Similarly, most monkeys may have stayed in the trees, but at some point others (perhaps through a change in their own local conditions) may have decided to come down and explore the plains. “May have”, because nobody knows. Why a complexity push only here and there? Because all innovations must take place in individual organisms,...-There are no good transitional forms from fish to land animals. Just 'sort of' specimens. And in most of the fossil records new species appear with no predecessor of small intermediate changes. The jumps are huge. Your theory is son-of-Darwin and requires the itty-bitty changes which don't exist. You can live with the hope for a better supporting fossil record, as did Darwin, but 150 years later, no luck.
More about how evolution works; stasis
dhw: Stasis doesn't need explaining. If organisms have reached what your author called an “optimal” state, they don't need to change. They will go on living until there is a change in conditions to which they are unable to adapt.-DAVID: Your statement is correct, if one makes the assumption that the Earth never changes, but it is changing all the time. We know that 90% of everything that ever lived is now extinct. So ancient forms that never change are most unusual.-I can't follow your argument. Earth's changes explain why 90% of species are extinct: they died when they couldn't adapt. Earlier you complained that my hypothesis didn't explain “broad evidence of stasis, such as 250 million years of unchanged trilobites or 70 million-year old unchanged coelacanths.” Dinosaurs ruled the earth for about 160 million years, but died out when they couldn't cope with new conditions. What is there to explain? dhw: Once again, innovation is the phenomenon that requires explanation.-DAVID: Under our current state of knowledge innovation is not explained. -Yep, that's why we come up with our different theories.-DAVID: It is probable that changes of environment cause adaptations. This is well known as epigenetic alterations. We do not know if it leads to speciation, which is what you are trying to imply. And it is just as possible that innovation is produced by God's plan.-I am not implying that adaptation leads to speciation, but that the same mechanism may also exploit new conditions in order to create new structures that lead to improvement (and so to speciation). However, I'm glad you now regard this as being just as possible as your divine 3.8 billion-year computer programme or divine dabbling (= God's planning, as opposed to individuals seeking improvement). At least you have progressed to 50/50. -dhw: Earlier I suggested the emergence of dry land as an example: some aquatic creatures will stay in the water, but others will explore the new environment, and their cell communities will cooperate to restructure themselves. [...]-DAVID: There are no good transitional forms from fish to land animals. Just 'sort of' specimens. And in most of the fossil records new species appear with no predecessor of small intermediate changes. The jumps are huge. Your theory is son-of-Darwin and requires the itty-bitty changes which don't exist. You can live with the hope for a better supporting fossil record, as did Darwin, but 150 years later, no luck.-You keep repeating the same objection, and I keep repeating the same answer. The changes HAVE to be jumps (hence no fossils) or the organisms won't survive. According to my hypothesis Darwin was wrong: random mutations and gradualism are out: the intelligent cell communities cooperate to restructure organisms (just as they cooperate when organisms adapt) to find new ways of exploiting the existing environment. If the innovation doesn't work, it and the organism won't survive. A fish that slithers onto dry land will die if it can't breathe or move.
More about how evolution works; stasis
by David Turell , Sunday, October 18, 2015, 15:19 (3110 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Stasis doesn't need explaining. If organisms have reached what your author called an “optimal” state, they don't need to change. They will go on living until there is a change in conditions to which they are unable to adapt. > > DAVID: Your statement is correct, if one makes the assumption that the Earth never changes, but it is changing all the time. We know that 90% of everything that ever lived is now extinct. So ancient forms that never change are most unusual. > > dhw: I can't follow your argument. Earth's changes explain why 90% of species are extinct: they died when they couldn't adapt. Earlier you complained that my hypothesis didn't explain “broad evidence of stasis, such as 250 million years of unchanged trilobites or 70 million-year old unchanged coelacanths.” Dinosaurs ruled the earth for about 160 million years, but died out when they couldn't cope with new conditions. What is there to explain?-Aren't 'ancient forms that never change most unusual'? Of course trilobites and dinosaurs died out, but bacteria didn't through 'snowball' Earth, palm trees in the Arctic, ice ages, etc. To me this means certain organisms are not meant to die, but I forget, you don't want to look for purpose in evolution. > > dhw: I am not implying that adaptation leads to speciation, but that the same mechanism may also exploit new conditions in order to create new structures that lead to improvement (and so to speciation). -That sentence runs in circles: 'not implying adaptation leads to speciation'....'and so to speciation'. -> > dhw: You keep repeating the same objection, and I keep repeating the same answer. The changes HAVE to be jumps (hence no fossils) or the organisms won't survive. According to my hypothesis Darwin was wrong: random mutations and gradualism are out: the intelligent cell communities cooperate to restructure organisms (just as they cooperate when organisms adapt) to find new ways of exploiting the existing environment. If the innovation doesn't work, it and the organism won't survive. -And my objection is the same. The gaps in the fossil record require the engineering of new forms so that all the new parts are coordinated in their functions. The whale series of eight or nine steps is a wonderful example of the impossibility of your thesis. Those 'intelligent cell communities' can just think of everything and make the jumps.
More about how evolution works; stasis
dhw: I can't follow your argument. Earth's changes explain why 90% of species are extinct: they died when they couldn't adapt. Earlier you complained that my hypothesis didn't explain “broad evidence of stasis, such as 250 million years of unchanged trilobites or 70 million-year old unchanged coelacanths.” Dinosaurs ruled the earth for about 160 million years, but died out when they couldn't cope with new conditions. What is there to explain? DAVID: Aren't 'ancient forms that never change most unusual'? Of course trilobites and dinosaurs died out, but bacteria didn't through 'snowball' Earth, palm trees in the Arctic, ice ages, etc. To me this means certain organisms are not meant to die, but I forget, you don't want to look for purpose in evolution.-I see it the other way: you want to look for a special purpose in evolution, whereas I interpret the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings as evidence that there is no overriding purpose: only individual purposes, as organisms seek to survive and/or improve. This is mirrored by the evolution of human society, in which each individual also seeks to survive and/or improve, and innovations for improvement lead to colossal transformations: new species, ways of life, natural wonders in the animal world; new ways of life and technological wonders in the human world. dhw: I am not implying that adaptation leads to speciation, but that the same mechanism may also exploit new conditions in order to create new structures that lead to improvement (and so to speciation). DAVID: That sentence runs in circles: 'not implying adaptation leads to speciation'....'and so to speciation'. -No circle here. I am trying to distinguish between adaptation, which leaves the species intact, and innovation (new structures) which leads to new species. I am suggesting that the same autonomous “brain” of the cell community is responsible for both processes. dhw: You keep repeating the same objection, and I keep repeating the same answer. The changes HAVE to be jumps (hence no fossils) or the organisms won't survive. DAVID: And my objection is the same. The gaps in the fossil record require the engineering of new forms so that all the new parts are coordinated in their functions. The whale series of eight or nine steps is a wonderful example of the impossibility of your thesis. Those 'intelligent cell communities' can just think of everything and make the jumps.-The whale series is a wonderful example of how my hypothesis works. Each step takes place in existing organisms that innovate in accordance with what the environment allows. And of course the cell communities must adjust so that the new parts are coordinated. That would also apply if your own hypotheses were correct: either God dabbled to ensure the coordination, or his 3.8-billion-year computer programme passed on the instructions for all the cell communities to coordinate once environmental changes triggered his special 8-9 step programme for the production of whales, even though his purpose was to produce humans!
More about how evolution works; stasis
by David Turell , Monday, October 19, 2015, 18:12 (3109 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:I interpret the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings as evidence that there is no overriding purpose: only individual purposes, as organisms seek to survive and/or improve. This is mirrored by the evolution of human society, in which each individual also seeks to survive and/or improve, and innovations for improvement lead to colossal transformations: new species, ways of life, natural wonders in the animal world; new ways of life and technological wonders in the human world.-So you seem to have solved the mystery of speciation by speculation. Using humans, who can think deeply as an example. Poor choice. Even we cannot explain for species, only modify by selective breeding. > > dhw: I am trying to distinguish between adaptation, which leaves the species intact, and innovation (new structures) which leads to new species. I am suggesting that the same autonomous “brain” of the cell community is responsible for both processes.-Fabulous speculation, with no evidence for the ability to plan for the new complexity of new species. > > dhw: The whale series is a wonderful example of how my hypothesis works. Each step takes place in existing organisms that innovate in accordance with what the environment allows. And of course the cell communities must adjust so that the new parts are coordinated.-And I view the jumps as impossible leaps without planning. You are forgetting there are no intermediate testing steps to steer the right transformations. de nova leaps. Sure!
about how evolution works; with no challenge
by David Turell , Saturday, November 21, 2015, 00:59 (3077 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: There is no disagreement here. You are repeating my own arguments in your own words: "environmental changes cause modifications" = adapt; “how complexity advances”, “increasing complexity” = my “innovations”; “very specialized process” and “certain groups of organisms” = my “exceptional individuals”. The only difference between us is your insistence on “a designed evolutionary plan”, whereas I would argue that the whole process smells of organisms doing their own thing. > > DAVID: Your smell concludes that some organisms are satisfied to stay the same and others are discontent with their life and therefore complexify. Sounds like a scattershot method of evolution to me. > > Yes, I am challenging your attempt to read God's mind by assuming that he planned everything for the sake of humans - a hypothesis that simply doesn't fit in with the “scattershot” history of evolution. Instead I am suggesting that this history can be explained by the fact that some organisms adapt to changing conditions, others fail and so die out, and others find their own ways of exploiting new conditions and “complexifying", as dictated by their individual ability to master changing conditions, and not by some overriding anthropocentric purpose. -Based on your worry about an IM with guidelines, I went back to this entry. What occurred to my was the obvious appearance of organisms changing their phenotype for no apparent reason. How many species modify and there are no environmental challenges? I think humans are one prime example. What I am claiming is that it is obvious some changes and advances are not due to stress, but simple innovation. The whale series is another example. The changes only served to complicate the physiology of the animals as they progressed from land animals to sea-dwelling whales. Natural selection played a role but initial stress didn't as far as can be told.
about how evolution works; with no challenge
DAVID: Based on your worry about an IM with guidelines, I went back to this entry. What occurred to my was the obvious appearance of organisms changing their phenotype for no apparent reason. How many species modify and there are no environmental challenges? I think humans are one prime example. What I am claiming is that it is obvious some changes and advances are not due to stress, but simple innovation. The whale series is another example. The changes only served to complicate the physiology of the animals as they progressed from land animals to sea-dwelling whales. Natural selection played a role but initial stress didn't as far as can be told.-You have missed out the argument that I have put forward throughout this thread: namely, that what you call stress or environmental challenge leads to adaptation, but environmental change also offers opportunity for what I call IMPROVEMENT, and it is improvement that advances evolution. That is why I keep quoting the image of the fish leaving water when suddenly confronted by dry land. The land animal that entered the water reverses my example. My whole argument is based on the claim that innovation is not required but is the result of intelligent organisms exploiting new (for them) conditions in order to better themselves. But it is also possible that an especially intelligent “mind” will think of a new way of doing things - as in many of the natural wonders you present to us. That would be a different type of innovation, but the principle remains the same: intelligent organisms are inventive.
about how evolution works; with no challenge
by David Turell , Saturday, November 21, 2015, 16:01 (3076 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Based on your worry about an IM with guidelines, I went back to this entry. What occurred to my was the obvious appearance of organisms changing their phenotype for no apparent reason. How many species modify and there are no environmental challenges? I think humans are one prime example. What I am claiming is that it is obvious some changes and advances are not due to stress, but simple innovation. The whale series is another example. The changes only served to complicate the physiology of the animals as they progressed from land animals to sea-dwelling whales. Natural selection played a role but initial stress didn't as far as can be told. > > dhw: You have missed out the argument that I have put forward throughout this thread: namely, that what you call stress or environmental challenge leads to adaptation, but environmental change also offers opportunity for what I call IMPROVEMENT, and it is improvement that advances evolution. That is why I keep quoting the image of the fish leaving water when suddenly confronted by dry land. The land animal that entered the water reverses my example. My whole argument is based on the claim that innovation is not required but is the result of intelligent organisms exploiting new (for them) conditions in order to better themselves. But it is also possible that an especially intelligent “mind” will think of a new way of doing things - as in many of the natural wonders you present to us. That would be a different type of innovation, but the principle remains the same: intelligent organisms are inventive.-Now you propose that organisms have an innate will to better themselves. You have talked your way around my proposal that improvements can and do appear with no stress at all. The whale series created more physiologic stress by attempting to enter the water than maintaining the status it had. And there are many examples of stasis for 350 million years or more. So some are dangerously inventive and some are not? Why would a fish struggle to get up on land? My solution to your proposal is a God-given drive to complexity, because the lifestyles we know developed required intense planning to accomplish them. Again eight distinct very different species from land animal to whale with no intermediates to fill the large gaps in phenotype.
about how evolution works; with no challenge
DAVID: ...What I am claiming is that it is obvious some changes and advances are not due to stress, but simple innovation. The whale series is another example. The changes only served to complicate the physiology of the animals as they progressed from land animals to sea-dwelling whales. Natural selection played a role but initial stress didn't as far as can be told.-dhw: You have missed out the argument that I have put forward throughout this thread: namely, that what you call stress or environmental challenge leads to adaptation, but environmental change also offers opportunity for what I call IMPROVEMENT, and it is improvement that advances evolution. That is why I keep quoting the image of the fish leaving water when suddenly confronted by dry land. The land animal that entered the water reverses my example. My whole argument is based on the claim that innovation is not required but is the result of intelligent organisms exploiting new (for them) conditions in order to better themselves....-DAVID: Now you propose that organisms have an innate will to better themselves. You have talked your way around my proposal that improvements can and do appear with no stress at all. The whale series created more physiologic stress by attempting to enter the water than maintaining the status it had. And there are many examples of stasis for 350 million years or more. So some are dangerously inventive and some are not? Why would a fish struggle to get up on land? My solution to your proposal is a God-given drive to complexity, because the lifestyles we know developed required intense planning to accomplish them. Again eight distinct very different species from land animal to whale with no intermediates to fill the large gaps in phenotype.-The stress you referred to earlier was “advances due to stress”, i.e. the challenge of a changed environment. That relates to adaptation. Now you are switching to stress caused by innovation for the sake of improvement. Are you suggesting, then, that your whale didn't suffer any stress because God organized its transition, whereas my whale went through agonies? How do you know? If I said that God gave organisms an “innate will to better themselves”, it would be exactly the same as your “God-driven drive to complexity”. Otherwise there would be no species apart from bacteria. As you so rightly say, the wonderful article about acorn worms makes it “hard to deny an evolutionary process”. “Human arms, birds' wings, cats' paws and the whales' flippers are classical examples of homology, because they all derive from the limbs of a common ancestor.” Some fish left the water, and some pre-whales left the land, but other fish stayed in the water and other land animals stayed on the land, so of course some organisms are inventive and some are not. In your scenario, some organisms inherited your God's make-yourself-into-a-whale-via-eight-different-species programme, and others did not. And that's just one of the billions of programmes that had to be passed down selectively by the very first cells so that birds and cats and whales and dinosaurs and the duck-billed platypus could fulfil your God's purpose of creating humans. Ockham will be squirming in his grave.-Xxxxxx-Thank you for the intriguing article on “Quantum weirdness”, which I need time to digest.
about how evolution works; with no challenge
by David Turell , Sunday, November 22, 2015, 16:05 (3075 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The stress you referred to earlier was “advances due to stress”, i.e. the challenge of a changed environment. That relates to adaptation. Now you are switching to stress caused by innovation for the sake of improvement. Are you suggesting, then, that your whale didn't suffer any stress because God organized its transition, whereas my whale went through agonies? How do you know?-"Know' is much too strong a word. The jumps in the whale series are a prime example of my viewpoint. God HAD to have guided this. Logically it could not have occurred by chance.-> dhw:And that's just one of the billions of programmes that had to be passed down selectively by the very first cells so that birds and cats and whales and dinosaurs and the duck-billed platypus could fulfil your God's purpose of creating humans. Ockham will be squirming in his grave.-God and Occam are not compatible. Human reasoning and Occam are compatible. Why do you think God thinks like you do?
about how evolution works; with no challenge
dhw: The stress you referred to earlier was “advances due to stress”, i.e. the challenge of a changed environment. That relates to adaptation. Now you are switching to stress caused by innovation for the sake of improvement. Are you suggesting, then, that your whale didn't suffer any stress because God organized its transition, whereas my whale went through agonies? How do you know?-DAVID: "Know' is much too strong a word. The jumps in the whale series are a prime example of my viewpoint. God HAD to have guided this. Logically it could not have occurred by chance.-The disagreement between us is not over chance v. design, but over how jumps may have happened. The jumps in the whale series are "a prime example of my viewpoint": that existing organisms invent new ways of exploiting their environment. Each innovation results in a new “species”, but that species may also innovate. Hence eight “jumps” from land animal to whale. dhw: And that's just one of the billions of programmes that had to be passed down selectively by the very first cells so that birds and cats and whales and dinosaurs and the duck-billed platypus could fulfil your God's purpose of creating humans. Ockham will be squirming in his grave.-DAVID: God and Occam are not compatible. Human reasoning and Occam are compatible. Why do you think God thinks like you do?-We are comparing two scenarios: 1) your God creating an inventive mechanism of almost infinite potential, leading to a vast variety of species, lifestyles and natural “wonders” that come and go; 2) your God preprogramming or personally inventing every single species, lifestyle and natural wonder, extinct and extant, all for the sake of one species. Neither of us knows how God thinks, and so all we can judge by is the logical power of reasoning you believe your God has given us. Which of these two scenarios seems to fit in more logically with the history of life on Earth?-(But see “Cambrian explosion” for a glimmer of hope.)
about how evolution works; with no challenge
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 24, 2015, 14:59 (3073 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: The disagreement between us is not over chance v. design, but over how jumps may have happened. The jumps in the whale series are "a prime example of my viewpoint": that existing organisms invent new ways of exploiting their environment. Each innovation results in a new “species”, but that species may also innovate. Hence eight “jumps” from land animal to whale.-You are assuming that large physiologic and phenotypic changes in each jump can occur without advanced planning and understanding of the problems involved in making such jumps. Even Darwin knew that logically it should occur by itty-bitty steps.-> > dhw: We are comparing two scenarios: 1) your God creating an inventive mechanism of almost infinite potential, leading to a vast variety of species, lifestyles and natural “wonders” that come and go; 2) your God preprogramming or personally inventing every single species, lifestyle and natural wonder, extinct and extant, all for the sake of one species.... Which of these two scenarios seems to fit in more logically with the history of life on Earth?-You are the one who wants to question each scenario. I've admitted I have no idea if each or both are correct.
More about how evolution works
David's comment: This looks like a learned behaviour that became an instinct. Family planning with food source. dhw: The premise would be that fruit flies are not machines but thinking beings, and they use whatever materials are at their disposal to investigate ways in which they can best cope with the environment. Whatever works stays (natural selection).-DAVID: Good definition of natural selection. Remember that fruit flies now do this behaviour automatically as an instinct. I can't tell with certainty how it came about. The first male to do it might have said: "great, I can eat, and might as well get a sex partner to enjoy the feast with me". Others followed and it became instinct.-Nobody knows how these things came about (let alone “with certainty”), but your scenario seems perfectly feasible, if one could translate the words back into Fruitflyese. Whatever the innovation, lifestyle or wonder, there must have been a first, and the organism(s) that started it must have known what they were doing. We humans also perform lots of actions by instinct, but you will know from your experience as a physician that when something goes wrong, we have to learn all over again how to do them. The instinctive becomes conscious. We'd need to set our fruit flies some problems before we could tell how “intelligent” they were. dhw: ...adaptation may hold the key to innovation. If we are sceptical of the notion that God preplanned... we are left with the hypothesis that the cell communities within the guppy make all the necessary adjustments. They are confronted with a new problem, they process the information that comes to them from outside, and they communicate and cooperate with one another in working out how to deal with it. These are manifestations of intelligence. And once you attribute intelligence to organisms, you open up the possibility that as well as adapting, they may also be capable of innovating.-DAVID: All we know is that their genome is capable of methylating at appropriate spots, using intelligent information in their genome. The rest is inference, and we don't even know how the methylation process originally appeared in evolution. We can recognize the code contains information, and my choice for source is God.-You love the term “intelligent information”, but in the past when we have tried to pin it down, it simply amounts to the mechanism which enables organisms to process information from outside themselves and act accordingly. We don't know how ANYTHING originally appeared in evolution. No matter how much you cloak your ideas in fancy language, you are faced with a choice: either organisms are preprogrammed by your God to adapt/innovate, he intervenes personally, or there is a mechanism (possibly designed by your God) that enables organisms to do their own independent adapting and innovating.
More about how evolution works
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 14, 2015, 15:32 (3114 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You love the term “intelligent information”, but in the past when we have tried to pin it down, it simply amounts to the mechanism which enables organisms to process information from outside themselves and act accordingly. We don't know how ANYTHING originally appeared in evolution. No matter how much you cloak your ideas in fancy language, you are faced with a choice: either organisms are preprogrammed by your God to adapt/innovate, he intervenes personally, or there is a mechanism (possibly designed by your God) that enables organisms to do their own independent adapting and innovating.-Not "we pinning it down". You are skipping the obvious again: DNA is an informational code. Information does not develop on its own. It has to be initially supplied or created. I grant you that epigenetics appears to create newly coded information. However, first life to 'now' is a continuum, and there is no way to go from some organic molecules to information-bearing DNA on an naturalistic basis. DNA only when formed can then add or subtract. Intelligent information is the only answer to the beginning. Not "either-or". All of your theistic probabilities fit the story. Why choose? Look, you've just helped to prove God.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Thursday, October 15, 2015, 00:16 (3114 days ago) @ David Turell
> > dhw: You love the term “intelligent information”, but in the past when we have tried to pin it down, it simply amounts to the mechanism which enables organisms to process information from outside themselves and act accordingly. We don't know how ANYTHING originally appeared in evolution. No matter how much you cloak your ideas in fancy language, you are faced with a choice: either organisms are preprogrammed by your God to adapt/innovate, he intervenes personally, or there is a mechanism (possibly designed by your God) that enables organisms to do their own independent adapting and innovating. > > Not "we pinning it down". You are skipping the obvious again: DNA is an informational code. Information does not develop on its own. It has to be initially supplied or created. I grant you that epigenetics appears to create newly coded information. However, first life to 'now' is a continuum, and there is no way to go from some organic molecules to information-bearing DNA on an naturalistic basis. DNA only when formed can then add or subtract. Intelligent information is the only answer to the beginning. Not "either-or". All of your theistic probabilities fit the story. Why choose? Look, you've just helped to prove God.-Are you afraid to watch it?:-The case for biologic information (Introduction)-by David Turell @, Thursday, October 08, 2015, 14:31 (6 days ago)-A video which explains:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/new-podium-free-film-addresses-origin...-"Information drives the development of life. But what is the source of that information? Could it have been produced by an unguided Darwinian process? Or did it require intelligent design? The Information Enigma is a fascinating 21-minute documentary that probes the mystery of biological information, the challenge it poses to orthodox Darwinian theory, and the reason it points to intelligent design. The video features molecular biologist Douglas Axe and Stephen Meyer, author of the books Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt."
More about how evolution works: look at the video
dhw: You love the term “intelligent information”, but in the past when we have tried to pin it down, it simply amounts to the mechanism which enables organisms to process information from outside themselves and act accordingly. We don't know how ANYTHING originally appeared in evolution. No matter how much you cloak your ideas in fancy language, you are faced with a choice: either organisms are preprogrammed by your God to adapt/innovate, he intervenes personally, or there is a mechanism (possibly designed by your God) that enables organisms to do their own independent adapting and innovating.-DAVID: Not "we pinning it down". You are skipping the obvious again: DNA is an informational code. Information does not develop on its own. It has to be initially supplied or created. I grant you that epigenetics appears to create newly coded information. However, first life to 'now' is a continuum, and there is no way to go from some organic molecules to information-bearing DNA on an naturalistic basis. DNA only when formed can then add or subtract. Intelligent information is the only answer to the beginning. Not "either-or". All of your theistic probabilities fit the story. Why choose? Look, you've just helped to prove God.-As usual, you scurry away from “how evolution works” to the question of origin, although over and over again - even in the passage you have quoted - I have ceded that the mechanism may have been designed by your God. DAVID: Are you afraid to watch it?: The case for biologic information (Introduction) by David Turell @, Thursday, October 08, 2015, 14:31 (6 days ago) A video which explains: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/new-podium-free-film-addresses-origin... "Information drives the development of life. But what is the source of that information? Could it have been produced by an unguided Darwinian process? Or did it require intelligent design? [...]-I watched it first time round. How often do I have to repeat my acknowledgement that the source may be your God? The mystery of the source is a prime argument against atheism, just as the mystery of the source of a designer is a prime argument against theism. Texan proverb 5: If your horse is dead, keep flogging it: that'll save you from finding a new one.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Friday, October 16, 2015, 01:39 (3113 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You love the term “intelligent information”, but in the past when we have tried to pin it down, it simply amounts to the mechanism which enables organisms to process information from outside themselves and act accordingly. > > As usual, you scurry away from “how evolution works” to the question of origin, although over and over again - even in the passage you have quoted - I have ceded that the mechanism may have been designed by your God.-And I've said to you the whole process is a continuum from the first cell to now, so origin must always be included in a discussion of mechanism. > > DAVID: Are you afraid to watch it?: > The case for biologic information (Introduction) > by David Turell @, Thursday, October 08, 2015, 14:31 (6 days ago) > A video which explains: > http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/new-podium-free-film-addresses-origin... > dhw: I watched it first time round. How often do I have to repeat my acknowledgement that the source may be your God? The mystery of the source is a prime argument against atheism, just as the mystery of the source of a designer is a prime argument against theism.-But there must be a first cause. What is it? You decline to propose an answer.-> dhw: Texan proverb 5: If your horse is dead, keep flogging it: that'll save you from finding a new one.-Cowboy philosophy #5: Wasted energy is worthless. A good friend, now departed, deserves a good burial. A severely injured horse must be quickly euthanized, as well as incomplete reasoning.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
Dhw: As usual, you scurry away from “how evolution works” to the question of origin, although over and over again - even in the passage you have quoted - I have ceded that the mechanism may have been designed by your God.-DAVID: And I've said to you the whole process is a continuum from the first cell to now, so origin must always be included in a discussion of mechanism.-And I have granted the possibility that the origin is your God. The discussion on “how evolution works” therefore revolves around your God's intentions and methods, not whether God is the source. -DAVID: But there must be a first cause. What is it? You decline to propose an answer.-I have never declined to propose an answer, but have repeated over and over again the hypothesis we both subscribe to: namely, eternal energy. In your hypothesis it has always inexplicably been intelligent. In my alternative hypothesis it has ceaselessly transmuted itself into matter and vice versa, in the course of which intelligence has inexplicably evolved through matter.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Friday, October 16, 2015, 14:32 (3112 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: But there must be a first cause. What is it? You decline to propose an answer. > > dhw: I have never declined to propose an answer, but have repeated over and over again the hypothesis we both subscribe to: namely, eternal energy. In your hypothesis it has always inexplicably been intelligent. In my alternative hypothesis it has ceaselessly transmuted itself into matter and vice versa, in the course of which intelligence has inexplicably evolved through matter.-Your view is that intelligence can evolve from matter which was formed from energy, all by itself. I view intelligence as the ability to gain knowledge, understand facts and then collate that material into reasonable conclusions. I agree your view is inexplicable. I cannot see how intelligence can evolve all by itself from some form of undescribed matter. Your own sharp intelligence requires 100 billion neurons and invented an inexplicable escape hatch.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
DAVID: But there must be a first cause. What is it? You decline to propose an answer. dhw: I have never declined to propose an answer, but have repeated over and over again the hypothesis we both subscribe to: namely, eternal energy. In your hypothesis it has always inexplicably been intelligent. In my alternative hypothesis it has ceaselessly transmuted itself into matter and vice versa, in the course of which intelligence has inexplicably evolved through matter.-DAVID: Your view is that intelligence can evolve from matter which was formed from energy, all by itself. I view intelligence as the ability to gain knowledge, understand facts and then collate that material into reasonable conclusions. I agree your view is inexplicable. I cannot see how intelligence can evolve all by itself from some form of undescribed matter. Your own sharp intelligence requires 100 billion neurons and invented an inexplicable escape hatch.-Firstly, it is not my view. I put it forward as an alternative to your view. I am an agnostic. I accept your concept of intelligence, and one of the reasons why I am an agnostic is that according to you intelligence doesn't need any neurons at all, let alone 100 billion of them. It just exists and has always been there, and you call it God, and that doesn't require any explanation. It is simply inexplicable. -As far as my alternative is concerned, though, I will point out that, if we accept the concept of common descent, my 100 billion neurons took thousands of millions of years to assemble themselves, and in the beginning their ancestors were single cells (later combining and cooperating) that used their inexplicable “ability to gain knowledge, understand facts and then collate the material into reasonable conclusions.” An accumulation of knowledge gleaned from thousands of millions of years' experience of changing material conditions, with corresponding advances, does not seem to me any less likely than a total grasp of all knowledge even before the materials exist. (Some forms of your God do not have a total knowledge, but he would still have needed enough to create a universe and material life, which is just as inexplicable.) However, it's 50/50 for me: two inexplicable hypotheses do not allow for a decision.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by BBella , Saturday, October 17, 2015, 17:19 (3111 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: But there must be a first cause. What is it? You decline to propose an answer. > dhw: I have never declined to propose an answer, but have repeated over and over again the hypothesis we both subscribe to: namely, eternal energy. In your hypothesis it has always inexplicably been intelligent. In my alternative hypothesis it has ceaselessly transmuted itself into matter and vice versa, in the course of which intelligence has inexplicably evolved through matter. > > DAVID: Your view is that intelligence can evolve from matter which was formed from energy, all by itself. I view intelligence as the ability to gain knowledge, understand facts and then collate that material into reasonable conclusions. I agree your view is inexplicable. I cannot see how intelligence can evolve all by itself from some form of undescribed matter. Your own sharp intelligence requires 100 billion neurons and invented an inexplicable escape hatch. > -Speaking of eternal, intelligent energy, if there is such, and science tends to lean to the side there is, then how can that eternal intelligence be removed from any thing that is? If in fact this hypothesis is true, how can eternal intelligence be bottled, labeled and sold as separate entities such as planet, water, dog, bird, air, space etc,? What I am asking is, can intelligent energy be separated from itself? I think Sheldrake's work says no, it can't. Our eye says yes it can be separated since all things are separate, but is science removing that veil and revealing the truth?
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Saturday, October 17, 2015, 22:31 (3111 days ago) @ BBella
> Bbella: Speaking of eternal, intelligent energy, if there is such, and science tends to lean to the side there is, then how can that eternal intelligence be removed from any thing that is? If in fact this hypothesis is true, how can eternal intelligence be bottled, labeled and sold as separate entities such as planet, water, dog, bird, air, space etc,? What I am asking is, can intelligent energy be separated from itself? I think Sheldrake's work says no, it can't. Our eye says yes it can be separated since all things are separate, but is science removing that veil and revealing the truth?-My conclusion has always been unshaken that God is a universal consciousness both within and without the universe and literally is a part of everything. Species consciousness, one of Sheldrake's pet ideas fits this very well, and his research shows that species consciousness exists.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
BBELLA: Speaking of eternal, intelligent energy, if there is such, and science tends to lean to the side there is, then how can that eternal intelligence be removed from any thing that is? If in fact this hypothesis is true, how can eternal intelligence be bottled, labeled and sold as separate entities such as planet, water, dog, bird, air, space etc,? What I am asking is, can intelligent energy be separated from itself? I think Sheldrake's work says no, it can't. Our eye says yes it can be separated since all things are separate, but is science removing that veil and revealing the truth?-DAVID: My conclusion has always been unshaken that God is a universal consciousness both within and without the universe and literally is a part of everything. Species consciousness, one of Sheldrake's pet ideas fits this very well, and his research shows that species consciousness exists.-I don't think science tends to lean to the side of eternal intelligent energy, if by that you mean a single universal mind as David imagines it. I don't even know if science is leaning to the side of eternal energy, since some scientists still think the universe began with the Big Bang and there was nothing before it. However, if the three of us agree on eternal energy, we can discuss it between ourselves. Where we do not agree is that eternal energy has been eternally intelligent. As an alternative to this inexplicable hypothesis of David's, I have suggested that eternal energy has eternally transmuted itself into matter, and intelligence has inexplicably evolved through matter. This means that although energy is everywhere, intelligence is indeed divided up precisely as you describe: in zillions of entities. This would also fit in with Sheldrake (species consciousness is not the same as universal consciousness), but it dispenses with the idea of a single intelligence designing and manipulating the universe and everything in it.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Sunday, October 18, 2015, 14:52 (3110 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: However, if the three of us agree on eternal energy, we can discuss it between ourselves. Where we do not agree is that eternal energy has been eternally intelligent. As an alternative to this inexplicable hypothesis of David's, I have suggested that eternal energy has eternally transmuted itself into matter, and intelligence has inexplicably evolved through matter. This means that although energy is everywhere, intelligence is indeed divided up precisely as you describe: in zillions of entities......but it dispenses with the idea of a single intelligence designing and manipulating the universe and everything in it.-A neat maneuver of deceptive thought. Yes, intelligence is everywhere, in the intelligent information in living organisms' cells to the intelligence in myriad brains of various types from C. elegans to humans. And you want it to just sort of evolve 'inexplicably'. That means you can't explain it, but it gets rid of the problem of God. More meat please. See my Romansh/ Ed Fesser entry of today. By the way he originated as an atheist.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
dhw: [...] This means that although energy is everywhere, intelligence is indeed divided up precisely as you describe: in zillions of entities......but it dispenses with the idea of a single intelligence designing and manipulating the universe and everything in it. DAVID: A neat maneuver of deceptive thought. Yes, intelligence is everywhere, in the intelligent information in living organisms' cells to the intelligence in myriad brains of various types from C. elegans to humans. And you want it to just sort of evolve 'inexplicably'. That means you can't explain it, but it gets rid of the problem of God. More meat please. See my Romansh/ Ed Fesser entry of today. By the way he originated as an atheist.-What do you mean “it gets rid of the problem of God”? God is not the default position. You want an inexplicable intelligence called God to just sort of be there - “that means you can't explain it, but it gets rid of the problem” of how life and intelligence arose.-I agree with Fesser. I use similar arguments in my own “brief guide”. And I am an agnostic.-dhw: You continue to ignore the fact that both hypotheses are inexplicable. Your guiding hand or mind - energy always BEING aware of itself - is every bit as inexplicable as my inorganic materials BECOMING aware of themselves. DAVID: There has to be a first cause with planning ability. I view the complexity we see and are as impossible without that entity. I view your version of evolving intelligence as totally impossible. From your words, it just happens, no impetus. I see only force and direction, which must have a source.-I know your views, and I do not reject them because I do not have an answer to the question of how earthly life and intelligence came to be. But you do not have an answer to the question of how your God's life and intelligence came to be. You simply substitute one mystery for another, as if that solved the problem. “First cause” is either intelligent energy or energy in which intelligence evolved. Whichever hypothesis you opt for requires a large dose of irrational faith. Under “Cosmological philosophy”, we had the following exchange: dhw: “Static truths” would fit in with your idea of an eternal know-it-all intelligence creating the laws of nature, whereas “emerging behaviours that unfold and take hold as time elapses” clearly suggests evolution without prior planning. But he doesn't commit himself here either.-David's comment [re the article we were discussing]: Such clear thinking! dhw: Yes indeed. It's only faith that can dispense with clear thinking. DAVID: Faith totally clears up the mystery, solves all.-Precisely. You can have faith in an inexplicable power called God, or you can have faith in an inexplicable evolution of intelligence in matter, and each faith “totally clears up the mystery”.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Monday, October 19, 2015, 18:56 (3109 days ago) @ dhw
David: intelligence is everywhere, in the intelligent information in living organisms' cells to the intelligence in myriad brains of various types from C. elegans to humans. And you want it to just sort of evolve 'inexplicably'. That means you can't explain it, but it gets rid of the problem of God. More meat please. See my Romansh/ Ed Fesser entry of today. By the way he originated as an atheist.[/i] > > dhw: What do you mean “it gets rid of the problem of God”? God is not the default position. You want an inexplicable intelligence called God to just sort of be there - “that means you can't explain it, but it gets rid of the problem” of how life and intelligence arose.-I know He isn't the 'default'. But He supplies the information which is everywhere in biology. You need a thinking mind the create the underlying planning information in DNA and its modifying layers. > > David's comment [re the article we were discussing]: Such clear thinking! > dhw: Yes indeed. It's only faith that can dispense with clear thinking. > DAVID: Faith totally clears up the mystery, solves all. > > dhw: Precisely. You can have faith in an inexplicable power called God, or you can have faith in an inexplicable evolution of intelligence in matter, and each faith “totally clears up the mystery”.-This comment does not clear up your acceptance of first cause, nor does it override the issue of information which must come from a planning mind.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by BBella , Saturday, October 24, 2015, 05:03 (3105 days ago) @ dhw
Sorry, did not mean to drop the ball for so long. Life happenin'...-> BBELLA: Speaking of eternal, intelligent energy, if there is such, and science tends to lean to the side there is, then how can that eternal intelligence be removed from any thing that is? If in fact this hypothesis is true, how can eternal intelligence be bottled, labeled and sold as separate entities such as planet, water, dog, bird, air, space etc,? What I am asking is, can intelligent energy be separated from itself? I think Sheldrake's work says no, it can't. Our eye says yes it can be separated since all things are separate, but is science removing that veil and revealing the truth? > > I don't think science tends to lean to the side of eternal intelligent energy, if by that you mean a single universal mind as David imagines it. -No, was not implying a single universal mind as David supports, tho I do view the universe as intrinsically if not teleologically(?) connected. ->I don't even know if science is leaning to the side of eternal energy, since some scientists still think the universe began with the Big Bang and there was nothing before it. -I was thinking of how science recognizes that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so it would seem by that fact alone energy must be eternal - constantly transforming. And since all information that IS, is contained within ever transforming eternal energy, then it would seem to me that intelligence would be matter using information to intelligently create what IS. ->However, if the three of us agree on eternal energy, we can discuss it between ourselves. Where we do not agree is that eternal energy has been eternally intelligent. -It would seem to me that intelligence would need to have always been eternal just as energy and information has always been eternal, or nothing would have ever formed into what appears as intelligent order we see around us. Of course science believes intelligence has evolved - but that's intelligent matter using the information it has to reach this intelligent(?) conclusion.->As an alternative to this inexplicable hypothesis of David's, I have suggested that eternal energy has eternally transmuted itself into matter, and intelligence has inexplicably evolved through matter. -Or, could it be, intelligence has always (eternally) used information within energy to transform matter into what IS?->This means that although energy is everywhere, intelligence is indeed divided up precisely as you describe: in zillions of entities. This would also fit in with Sheldrake (species consciousness is not the same as universal consciousness), but it dispenses with the idea of a single intelligence designing and manipulating the universe and everything in it.-Or, possibly, as energy transforms (creates) it vibrates information throughout all that IS. And on SOME LEVEL (<--the operative words) all creation (intelligently?) detects or becomes aware of what is newly being created through vibration. This "sense" within all that IS that is doing the detecting of this vibration could be considered a universally conscious intelligence? Or, what some might call God.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
BBELLA: Sorry, did not mean to drop the ball for so long. Life happenin'...-Always happy when you pick up the ball, and I hope life is happenin' nicely!-Dhw: I don't think science tends to lean to the side of eternal intelligent energy, if by that you mean a single universal mind as David imagines it. -BBELLA: No, was not implying a single universal mind as David supports, tho I do view the universe as intrinsically if not teleologically(?) connected. -It's an important distinction.-Dhw: I don't even know if science is leaning to the side of eternal energy, since some scientists still think the universe began with the Big Bang and there was nothing before it. BBELLA: I was thinking of how science recognizes that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so it would seem by that fact alone energy must be eternal - constantly transforming. And since all information that IS, is contained within ever transforming eternal energy, then it would seem to me that intelligence would be matter using information to intelligently create what IS.-I have great difficulty with the current all-pervasive concept of “information”. You and I seem to agree that there is a constant process of transformation by which eternal energy changes into matter into energy into matter and so on. This means there is a constant flow of “information” in the sense that new things are happening all the time ("creating all that is"), but that doesn't mean they are being guided or observed or used by any intelligence. The only intelligence we actually know of is our own, but if we accept that the mechanisms of life and consciousness are too complex to have arisen by chance, we look for a source, which links up with your next comment: BBELLA: It would seem to me that intelligence would need to have always been eternal just as energy and information has always been eternal, or nothing would have ever formed into what appears as intelligent order we see around us. Of course science believes intelligence has evolved - but that's intelligent matter using the information it has to reach this intelligent(?) conclusion.-Again I don't know what you mean by eternal “information”. Information about what? About energy and matter transmuting themselves? I agree that there is order on our planet and in its relationship to other elements of our solar system, but that certainly doesn't mean there has been “intelligent order” throughout eternity, or in the approx. 100,000,000,000 solar systems like ours in each of the approx. 100,000,000,000 galaxies (don't worry, I haven't done the counting or the guessing!), which may have replaced and may be replaced by zillions more. Maybe they just ARE. Mindless energy mindlessly transmuting itself into mindless matter. Order in a few grains of sand does not make for order in a thousand million miles of beach.-Dhw: As an alternative to this inexplicable hypothesis of David's, I have suggested that eternal energy has eternally transmuted itself into matter, and intelligence has inexplicably evolved through matter. BBELLA: Or, could it be, intelligence has always (eternally) used information within energy to transform matter into what IS?-Again, information about what? If we are thinking of life on planet Earth, the information has to be about matter - basically, how inanimate matter can be transformed into living matter. Perhaps how matter can be given life through energy? But this still doesn't give us a source of intelligence or any reason for believing that intelligence has been present for ever and ever. Dhw: This means that although energy is everywhere, intelligence is indeed divided up precisely as you describe: in zillions of entities. This would also fit in with Sheldrake (species consciousness is not the same as universal consciousness), but it dispenses with the idea of a single intelligence designing and manipulating the universe and everything in it.-BBELLA: Or, possibly, as energy transforms (creates) it vibrates information throughout all that IS. And on SOME LEVEL (<--the operative words) all creation (intelligently?) detects or becomes aware of what is newly being created through vibration. This "sense" within all that IS that is doing the detecting of this vibration could be considered a universally conscious intelligence? Or, what some might call God.-This ties in with the most universal concept of panpsychism, and ”SOME LEVEL” is indeed the operative expression. But although it may well be that cause and effect reverberate throughout the universe, if I throw a stone into the water, can I really assume that the stone and the ripples are conscious at ANY level of what they are doing? Yes, there is “information” in the sense that things happen, and vibration may be the key to cause and effect, but neither information nor vibration implies consciousness at a level capable of deliberately creating life. So I don't think anybody would call that “God”. These are deep waters, and I confess that I am way out of my depth, but perhaps I am not alone!
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Saturday, October 24, 2015, 15:48 (3104 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I have great difficulty with the current all-pervasive concept of “information”. You and I seem to agree that there is a constant process of transformation by which eternal energy changes into matter into energy into matter and so on. This means there is a constant flow of “information” in the sense that new things are happening all the time ("creating all that is"), but that doesn't mean they are being guided or observed or used by any intelligence. > > Again, information about what? If we are thinking of life on planet Earth, the information has to be about matter - basically, how inanimate matter can be transformed into living matter. > if I throw a stone into the water, can I really assume that the stone and the ripples are conscious at ANY level of what they are doing? Yes, there is “information” in the sense that things happen, and vibration may be the key to cause and effect, but neither information nor vibration implies consciousness at a level capable of deliberately creating life. So I don't think anybody would call that “God”. These are deep waters, and I confess that I am way out of my depth, but perhaps I am not alone!-Simple solution for you. You are struggling in the above quotes with descriptive information: the characteristics of ripples in water, energy and matter interchanges, new things happening all the time ( a flow of events). Descriptive information is the sort that describes the lattice of a crystal. But to achieve the specified complexity of living matter obviously requires a planning type of information which is provided by a complex code like DNA. Codes carry information, a point that cannot be avoided. Intellects make codes, crystals don't, even though crystals carry information of a static sort. Logical. The essay I presented yesterday by Lightman talks of the rarity of life in the universe. Obviously, special information was necessary to create it from the inorganic universe. Life is a separate microcosm universe within the universe, a very special segment of reality.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
dhw: I have great difficulty with the current all-pervasive concept of “information”. [...] DAVID: Simple solution for you. You are struggling in the above quotes with descriptive information: the characteristics of ripples in water, energy and matter interchanges, new things happening all the time ( a flow of events). Descriptive information is the sort that describes the lattice of a crystal. But to achieve the specified complexity of living matter obviously requires a planning type of information which is provided by a complex code like DNA. Codes carry information, a point that cannot be avoided. Intellects make codes, crystals don't, even though crystals carry information of a static sort. Logical. -This was covered by the second of the quotes: “[information about] how inanimate matter can be transformed into living matter”, though perhaps I should have added self-reproducing and conscious to living. In the context of how evolution works, you often use the (to me) obfuscatory term “intelligent information” in your determination to substitute automatism for autonomous intelligence in cells, whereas “intelligence” will do just fine for us humans. However, that is not the subject of this discussion with BBella, which is about first cause energy: BBELLA: ...since all information that IS, is contained within ever transforming eternal energy, then it would seem to me that intelligence would be matter using information to intelligently create what IS. [...] It would seem to me that intelligence would need to have always been eternal just as energy and information has always been eternal [...]-BBella does not subscribe to your single God theory, and I am questioning what is this “eternal information”. I am sure she will explain, but it would be interesting to know what you think it means.-DAVID: The essay I presented yesterday by Lightman talks of the rarity of life in the universe. Obviously, special information was necessary to create it from the inorganic universe. Life is a separate microcosm universe within the universe, a very special segment of reality.-I had not intended to comment on the essay, but perhaps I should. It is beautifully written, but I got very little out of it beyond the fact that we are unique though we are not unique, the universe has meaning because we are here to give it meaning, and we are alive. Mercifully, he never once uses the word “information”, so I don't know why you bring it in here, although of course I agree that life is very special. One example of his beautiful writing and - to my mind - disconnected thinking will suffice:-LIGHTMAN: We cannot imagine a universe without meaning. We are not talking necessarily about some grand cosmic meaning, or a divine meaning bestowed by God, or even a lasting, eternal meaning. But just the simple, particular meaning of everyday events, fleeting events like the momentary play of light on a lake, or the birth of a child. [...] And given our existence, our universe must have meaning, big and small meanings.-I would suggest that his examples denote the subjective importance we attach to elements of our life in this universe. As he says elsewhere, “If the minds don't exist, then neither does meaning”. So how does that lead to “our universe must have meaning”? Sorry if this sounds ungracious. And doubly sorry that it sheds no light whatsoever on the question of whether eternal energy is intelligent and what sort of “information” might be contained in eternal energy.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Sunday, October 25, 2015, 13:04 (3103 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:In the context of how evolution works, you often use the (to me) obfuscatory term “intelligent information” in your determination to substitute automatism for autonomous intelligence in cells, whereas “intelligence” will do just fine for us humans.-To repeat: DNA is a code that carries information, which obviously represents intelligent planning, or life wouldn't work. Only an intelligence can create a code. How do you view this or explain the presence of such a marvelous code? Certainly not by chance. Intelligence information is planned. Static information is about crystals.-> dhw: I would suggest that his examples denote the subjective importance we attach to elements of our life in this universe. As he says elsewhere, “If the minds don't exist, then neither does meaning”. So how does that lead to “our universe must have meaning”? Sorry if this sounds ungracious. -Life appears to be a miracle. Why not imply meaning to the universe as part of the overall considerations in deciding if theism is reasonable?
More about how evolution works: look at the video
dhw: In the context of how evolution works, you often use the (to me) obfuscatory term “intelligent information” in your determination to substitute automatism for autonomous intelligence in cells, whereas “intelligence” will do just fine for us humans.-DAVID: To repeat: DNA is a code that carries information, which obviously represents intelligent planning, or life wouldn't work. Only an intelligence can create a code. How do you view this or explain the presence of such a marvelous code? Certainly not by chance. Intelligence information is planned. Static information is about crystals.-You don't have to repeat the case for design. The context for this remark was the intelligence of cells, which you reject, opting instead for what you call “intelligent information”. This nebulous term is used to cover the claim that every single innovation, complex lifestyle and natural wonder was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or is the result of God's direct intervention - a theory even you admit is not accepted by most of your fellow ID-ers. That is why I regard the term as an obfuscation, and it has nothing to do with the argument for DNA being created by an intelligence.-dhw: I would suggest that his examples denote the subjective importance we attach to elements of our life in this universe. As he says elsewhere, “If the minds don't exist, then neither does meaning”. So how does that lead to “our universe must have meaning”? Sorry if this sounds ungracious. -DAVID: Life appears to be a miracle. Why not imply meaning to the universe as part of the overall considerations in deciding if theism is reasonable?-I was only pointing out the illogicality of Lightman's statement. As far as your own is concerned, I would reverse the thought: only if I decided theism was reasonable would I be able to attribute (not sure about "imply") meaning to the universe - but that would be objective meaning. I agree with Lightman that all of us have our own subjective meanings, if such things as light on the water or the birth of a child can be called “meaning”. In fact, I wouldn't use that word in such a context, as it has too many metaphysical connotations. “Subjective values” might be a better option.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Monday, October 26, 2015, 13:33 (3102 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The context for this remark was the intelligence of cells, which you reject, opting instead for what you call “intelligent information”. This nebulous term is used to cover the claim that every single innovation, complex lifestyle and natural wonder was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or is the result of God's direct intervention - a theory even you admit is not accepted by most of your fellow ID-ers. That is why I regard the term as an obfuscation, and it has nothing to do with the argument for DNA being created by an intelligence.-If "DNA is created by intelligence' then it contains intelligent information, that is the contention we agree in the argument. And fu > > dhw: I would suggest that his examples denote the subjective importance we attach to elements of our life in this universe. As he says elsewhere, “If the minds don't exist, then neither does meaning”. So how does that lead to “our universe must have meaning”? Sorry if this sounds ungracious. > > DAVID: Life appears to be a miracle. Why not imply meaning to the universe as part of the overall considerations in deciding if theism is reasonable? > > I was only pointing out the illogicality of Lightman's statement. As far as your own is concerned, I would reverse the thought: only if I decided theism was reasonable would I be able to attribute (not sure about "imply") meaning to the universe - but that would be objective meaning. I agree with Lightman that all of us have our own subjective meanings, if such things as light on the water or the birth of a child can be called “meaning”. In fact, I wouldn't use that word in such a context, as it has too many metaphysical connotations. “Subjective values” might be a better option.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Monday, October 26, 2015, 13:41 (3102 days ago) @ dhw
dhw" The context for this remark was the intelligence of cells, which you reject, opting instead for what you call “intelligent information”..... That is why I regard the term as an obfuscation, and it has nothing to do with the argument for DNA being created by an intelligence.-The argument is simply that DNA as a code contains information producing a very complex system, life, which cannot have arisen by chance. The source must be intelligence. For your theory, the original cells developed their own intelligence by some nebulous process. My theory at least accepts what we can see and reasons from that.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
dhw: The context for this remark was the intelligence of cells, which you reject, opting instead for what you call “intelligent information”. This nebulous term is used to cover the claim that every single innovation, complex lifestyle and natural wonder was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or is the result of God's direct intervention - a theory even you admit is not accepted by most of your fellow ID-ers. That is why I regard the term as an obfuscation, and it has nothing to do with the argument for DNA being created by an intelligence.-DAVID: If "DNA is created by intelligence' then it contains intelligent information, that is the contention we agree in the argument.-Then let's play the “intelligent information” game to its logical conclusion. By analogy with intelligent design, I assume you mean usable information produced by an intelligent mind. This tells us that if an intelligent mind created DNA, then whatever is contained within DNA was created by an intelligent mind, which doesn't get us very far. In the context of this thread, how does evolution work? Hypothesis 1): intelligence created the cell, which contains a 3.8-billion-year programme created by intelligence and requiring and containing masses of intelligent information. Hypothesis 2): Intelligence created the cell (theistic version), which contains an intelligent mind created by intelligence and requiring and containing masses of intelligent information. "Intelligent information" is therefore not an alternative to cellular intelligence, but is a nebulous concept that can be applied to both hypotheses. So why don't we both just say what we mean: you a 3.8-billion-year programme, and me cellular intelligence? -DAVID: The argument is simply that DNA as a code contains information producing a very complex system, life, which cannot have arisen by chance. The source must be intelligence. For your theory, the original cells developed their own intelligence by some nebulous process. My theory at least accepts what we can see and reasons from that.-I have understood the argument, and accept that chance is a highly improbable source of the system. That still doesn't make the term “intelligent information” any more helpful. As for the two theories, what we see is a complex system, and my hypothesis is based on a process that is no more nebulous than the hypothesis that some unknown sourceless intelligence created it.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 27, 2015, 19:15 (3101 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I have understood the argument, and accept that chance is a highly improbable source of the system. That still doesn't make the term “intelligent information” any more helpful. As for the two theories, what we see is a complex system, and my hypothesis is based on a process that is no more nebulous than the hypothesis that some unknown sourceless intelligence created it.-I have explained there are two types of information, that from static objects like crystals, and that which dynamic and drives processes like living matter. So lets call what cells possess 'dynamic information' which is contained in a code, DNA. For the source of this type of information I choose mind.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
dhw: I have understood the argument, and accept that chance is a highly improbable source of the system. That still doesn't make the term “intelligent information” any more helpful. -DAVID: I have explained there are two types of information, that from static objects like crystals, and that which dynamic and drives processes like living matter. So lets call what cells possess 'dynamic information' which is contained in a code, DNA. For the source of this type of information I choose mind.-In the context of how evolution works, it makes no difference what you call it. According to you, the ‘dynamic information' which drives evolution (as opposed to separate creation, which is driven directly by God) is a divine 3.8-billion-year computer programme for all the innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders, and my alternative hypothesis is that the ‘dynamic information' is a (perhaps God-given) autonomous intelligence. -Previously you distinguished between “descriptive” information and a “planning type” of information. I would suggest that discussion of these matters would be far simpler and clearer if we only used this current buzzword “information” descriptively: to denote the facts, the data, the knowledge extrapolated from objects, processes, events etc., which can be used to produce new objects, processes, events. Our description of what DNA consists of and does constitutes information, but what drives living matter is what we are describing - the mechanism, the intelligence, your God. In other words, it is not information that DOES the planning; it is the planning mechanism - itself perhaps created with the use of information - that uses information (facts, data, knowledge) to do the planning. So let us refer to it as the planning mechanism (or intelligence, or God), and not as information with some fancy tag.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 28, 2015, 17:35 (3100 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: In other words, it is not information that DOES the planning; it is the planning mechanism - itself perhaps created with the use of information - that uses information (facts, data, knowledge) to do the planning. So let us refer to it as the planning mechanism (or intelligence, or God), and not as information with some fancy tag.-Not 'perhaps'. Information runs life, period. There are many websites which discuss this:-http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/8818-http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/life-sciences/evolutionary-biology/information-theory-evolution-and-origin-life-https://books.google.com/books?id=5O5M7Wq0O1YC&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=the+basis+of+living+matter+is+information&source=bl&ots=TRBCwvY4ZF&sig=EqhntmvC2OdCAG-imuuF6qucuHo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBGoVChMIroLC3eXlyAIVUftjCh1DGAIk#v=onepage&q=the%20basis%20of%20living%20matter%20is%20information&f=false-http://amapress.gen.cam.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2013/01/Encounters-at-a-boundary.pdf-"Living matter is a dynamic mixture of organic polymers, nucleic acids and polypeptides, with significant contributions from carbohydrate and lipids. Inorganic ions and other organic compounds e.g vitamins, play significant additional roles in the mixture. It is a mixture far from thermodynamic equilibrium that generates dissipative structures. It is a mixture in a nonequilibrium steady state. (ii) Biology is about information which, at the highest and most universal level, flows according to the “central dogma” : the information to make, replicate and mold a cell is stored in genes, DNA, and is decoded by making transient copies in the form of mRNAs from which it is translated into proteins, that encode the functions of the cells (enzymes, structural role, processing of information)."-The basis of biology is information. To me, as a human, the way information can only be developed and understood is by 'mind'.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
dhw: In other words, it is not information that DOES the planning; it is the planning mechanism - itself perhaps created with the use of information - that uses information (facts, data, knowledge) to do the planning. So let us refer to it as the planning mechanism (or intelligence, or God), and not as information with some fancy tag. DAVID: Not 'perhaps'. Information runs life, period. -My ‘perhaps' referred to your God using information to create the planning mechanism.-DAVID: There are many websites which discuss this:http://amapress.gen.cam.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2013/01/Encounters-at-a-boundary.pdf &... "Living matter is a dynamic mixture of organic polymers, nucleic acids and polypeptides, with significant contributions from carbohydrate and lipids. Inorganic ions and other organic compounds e.g vitamins, play significant additional roles in the mixture. It is a mixture far from thermodynamic equilibrium that generates dissipative structures. It is a mixture in a nonequilibrium steady state. (ii) Biology is about information which, at the highest and most universal level, flows according to the “central dogma” : the information to make, replicate and mold a cell is stored in genes, DNA, and is decoded by making transient copies in the form of mRNAs from which it is translated into proteins, that encode the functions of the cells (enzymes, structural role, processing of information)."-I am well aware that “information” is the current buzzword, and I am challenging your use of it. Our discussion concerns how evolution works: aside from God's dabbling, the choice lies between cellular intelligence and a 3.8-billion-year computer programme passed down by the first cells. You have consistently used the term “intelligent information” to denote this programme, though you have also offered “planning” and “dynamic” as alternative descriptions. I have pointed out that you could just as easily use these terms to denote cellular intelligence. I accept that the information to make, replicate and mold a cell is stored in genes, DNA, but I would not call organic polymers etc. information: I would call them organic polymers. I see information as facts concerning what they are, what they do, and what can be done with them. One of the functions of cells is to process information. For clarity's sake, I want us to distinguish between what is processed and what does the processing, whereas you are telling me that information processes information. You say “information runs life.” I don't know what runs life, but I'm pretty sure that it entails a mechanism that processes and uses information. That is why I have suggested that we use “information” for what is processed, whereas what does the processing in your hypothesis is a 3.8-billion-year programme rather than “intelligent/dynamic/planning information”. -DAVID: The basis of biology is information. To me, as a human, the way information can only be developed and understood is by 'mind'.-That is precisely the argument of my hypothesis: the information is understood and developed by the “mind” or “intelligence” of the cell (which may have been designed by God).
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Thursday, October 29, 2015, 20:59 (3099 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I am well aware that “information” is the current buzzword, and I am challenging your use of it.... I have pointed out that you could just as easily use these terms to denote cellular intelligence. I accept that the information to make, replicate and mold a cell is stored in genes, DNA, but I would not call organic polymers etc. information: I would call them organic polymers. -I don't understand your problem. DNA is a polymer code that imparts information. The processes of life use that information to function, not just to form cells.-> dhw: I see information as facts concerning what they are, what they do, and what can be done with them. One of the functions of cells is to process information. For clarity's sake, I want us to distinguish between what is processed and what does the processing, whereas you are telling me that information processes information. You say “information runs life.” I don't know what runs life, but I'm pretty sure that it entails a mechanism that processes and uses information.-Then we agree, life runs on information.-> DAVID: The basis of biology is information. To me, as a human, the way information can only be developed and understood is by 'mind'. > > dhw: That is precisely the argument of my hypothesis: the information is understood and developed by the “mind” or “intelligence” of the cell (which may have been designed by God).-Back to 50/50 as to which is correct. I doubt it is both.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Friday, October 30, 2015, 00:24 (3099 days ago) @ David Turell
Information and matter are two different domains:-http://edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/h-Ch.1.html-"Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter. I address this problem in my 1992 book, Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges. These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term "reductionism." You can speak of galaxies and particles of dust in the same terms, because they both have mass and charge and length and width. You can't do that with information and matter. Information doesn't have mass or charge or length in millimeters. Likewise, matter doesn't have bytes. You can't measure so much gold in so many bytes. It doesn't have redundancy, or fidelity, or any of the other descriptors we apply to information. This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms.-"The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message. Maintaining this distinction between the medium and the message is absolutely indispensable to clarity of thought about evolution. (my bold)-"Just the fact that fifteen years ago I started using a computer may have had something to do with my ideas here. The constant process of transferring information from one physical medium to another and then being able to recover that same information in the original medium brings home the separability of information and matter. In biology, when you're talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, not physical objective reality. They're patterns."-Comment: That is the point: information is not material and life operates on information contained in material.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by BBella , Saturday, October 31, 2015, 17:21 (3097 days ago) @ David Turell
Comment: That is the point: information is not material and life operates on information contained in material.-I would agree if your sentence was put as so: Information is not material (except at the quantum level). Intelligence operates with information contained within material (matter) to create life.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Saturday, October 31, 2015, 19:47 (3097 days ago) @ BBella
David Comment: That is the point: information is not material and life operates on information contained in material. > > B bella:I would agree if your sentence was put as so: Information is not material (except at the quantum level). Intelligence operates with information contained within material (matter) to create life.-I'm sure what you mean 'at the quantum level'. Quanta contain characteristic properties which is a form of static information. DNA is a code based on amino acids. I generally agree with you.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by BBella , Saturday, October 31, 2015, 20:13 (3097 days ago) @ David Turell
David Comment: That is the point: information is not material and life operates on information contained in material. > > > > B bella:I would agree if your sentence was put as so: Information is not material (except at the quantum level). Intelligence operates with information contained within material (matter) to create life. > > I'm sure what you mean 'at the quantum level'. Quanta contain characteristic properties which is a form of static information. DNA is a code based on amino acids. I generally agree with you.-At the quantum level information (as well as all that IS, including material/matter) is all the same.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Saturday, October 31, 2015, 20:21 (3097 days ago) @ BBella
David Comment: That is the point: information is not material and life operates on information contained in material. > > > > > > B bella:I would agree if your sentence was put as so: Information is not material (except at the quantum level). Intelligence operates with information contained within material (matter) to create life. > > > > David: I'm not sure what you mean 'at the quantum level'. Quanta contain characteristic properties which is a form of static information. DNA is a code based on amino acids. I generally agree with you. > > Bbella: At the quantum level information (as well as all that IS, including material/matter) is all the same.-Quanta have to be organized into meaningful patterns to contain information, Shannon information theory defines information as bits of information.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by BBella , Saturday, October 31, 2015, 20:51 (3097 days ago) @ David Turell
David Comment: That is the point: information is not material and life operates on information contained in material. > > > > > > > > B bella:I would agree if your sentence was put as so: Information is not material (except at the quantum level). Intelligence operates with information contained within material (matter) to create life. > > > > > > David: I'm not sure what you mean 'at the quantum level'. Quanta contain characteristic properties which is a form of static information. DNA is a code based on amino acids. I generally agree with you. > > > > Bbella: At the quantum level information (as well as all that IS, including material/matter) is all the same. > > Quanta have to be organized into meaningful patterns to contain information, Shannon information theory defines information as bits of information.-Quanta is the substance that intelligence uses to create meaningful patterns we call information. Would that be the saying the same thing?
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Saturday, October 31, 2015, 23:19 (3097 days ago) @ BBella
> > David: Quanta have to be organized into meaningful patterns to contain information, Shannon information theory defines information as bits of information. > > Bbella: Quanta is the substance that intelligence uses to create meaningful patterns we call information. Would that be the saying the same thing? -Quantum theory involves various charged particles and how they interact on a probability basis. I think the human brain relies on quantum mechanisms. If we knew how consciousness arises, I might be able to really respond to your thought and question.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
This thread on the subject of “how evolution works” has been hi-jacked by a red herring called Information, which I am going to chase away onto another thread. Here is a summary of the hypotheses covered so far, plus the latest relevant exchanges from other threads:-1) 3.8 billion years ago an unknown, sourceless, individual mind devised a programme to be passed on by the first living cells to all subsequent organisms which would automatically switch on the correct part of the programme at the correct time to implement every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder of the past, present and future, although the mind's purpose was to produce humans and it may not have had control over the environment.(David) 2)The same unknown sourceless individual mind sometimes dabbled, which would seem to suggest that the 3.8-billion-year programme needed adjustments, though we shouldn't ask why because we can't read the mind. (David) 3) Evolution never happened, except with certain minor variations. All species (broad sense) were individually created by the above mind. (Tony) 4) Evolution works through a combination of random mutations and natural selection. (Darwin and faithful disciples) 5) Evolution is driven by cooperation between intelligent cells that exploit changing environmental conditions in order to improve their way of life. (dhw)-DAVID: They would have to understand design for the future organism to work at first try. No intermediate forms means no chance for trial and error. got to be right the first time.-Nobody knows how new species are formed, nobody understands how ANY minds - divine, human or cellular - work, and nobody knows how your God ”did it” or even whether he exists. It's all speculation. However, we need to differentiate here. Different strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders could be the result of trial and error, so long as the threat to the whole species is not immediate. Lots of coral reef fish could have died before this particular strategy was worked out. It's really structural innovations that are the problem, and once again we must face the fact that all the above hypotheses raise more questions than they answer, though for some reason you never seem to question your own. However, unlike adaptation, innovation is not a matter of survival but of exploiting new conditions in order to make improvements, which would not necessarily mean succeeding “at first try”. I'm really not sure how we would be able to identify an intermediate form. We won't find many soft tissues anyway, and a few bones won't carry a label saying: "I was a flonk on its way to becoming a flink." Actually, some folk might say the various hominins were intermediate forms on the way to humans, though each was of course an organism in its own right, and that's the problem. Any fossil will be of an organism that existed in its own right. However, if we take Darwin's “light sensitive nerve” as an innovation, it is quite conceivable that over a period of time other intelligent cell communities were able to improve on the invention, leading to the variety of seeing eyes that we know now. No intermediate forms - just different organisms improving on an existing invention. But I agree that individual innovations would have had to work quickly if they were to survive, since organisms would hardly persist in pursuing lost causes. If I had the answer, the Nobel Prize would be mine. And you could say the same.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Friday, October 30, 2015, 19:59 (3098 days ago) @ dhw
Good summary:-> > dhw: 1) 3.8 billion years ago an unknown, sourceless, individual mind devised a programme to be passed on by the first living cells to all subsequent organisms.(David)- >2)The same unknown sourceless individual mind sometimes dabbled, which would seem to suggest that the 3.8-billion-year programme needed adjustments, though we shouldn't ask why because we can't read the mind. (David)- > 3) Evolution never happened, except with certain minor variations. All species (broad sense) were individually created by the above mind. (Tony)-Don't agree with 3 as tony views it but I come close with my guided-by-God evolution theory-> dhw: 4) Evolution works through a combination of random mutations and natural selection. (Darwin and faithful disciples)-For me, no way!- > dhw: 5) Evolution is driven by cooperation between intelligent cells that exploit changing environmental conditions in order to improve their way of life. (dhw)-Problem is how did first life develop this so-called intelligence, which requires a mind? Your postulate is equal to my God-postulate, except I have a first cause as part of my theory, and you don't > > DAVID: They would have to understand design for the future organism to work at first try. No intermediate forms means no chance for trial and error. got to be right the first time. > > dhw: Nobody knows how new species are formed, ...However, we need to differentiate here. Different strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders could be the result of trial and error, so long as the threat to the whole species is not immediate.-But we do not see any fossil evidence of trail and error. Look at the Cambrian.-> dhw: It's really structural innovations that are the problem, and once again we must face the fact that all the above hypotheses raise more questions than they answer, though for some reason you never seem to question your own.-Fossils will show structural innovations, and they do as full-blown new species, no itty-bitty attempts. Cambrian explosion is why I don't question my conclusions. > > dhw: However, unlike adaptation, innovation is not a matter of survival but of exploiting new conditions in order to make improvements, which would not necessarily mean succeeding “at first try”.-Same answer as always: the same bacteria, in three classes, are still here unchanged after 3.6 billion years of change on Earth. Humans arrived and apes and monkeys didn't evolve during the same period.- . dhw: I'm really not sure how we would be able to identify an intermediate form. We won't find many soft tissues anyway, and a few bones won't carry a label saying: "I was a flonk on its way to becoming a flink."-Paleontologists would be insulted by your comment. Lots of soft tissue stuff is turning up now. Two days ago, an article I did not use here told of x-ray diffraction showing the intestine in an ossified fossil. Much other soft tissue stuff is turning up. I'm not reporting much of it here. I don't have the time to feed everything I see.-> dhw: Any fossil will be of an organism that existed in its own right. However, if we take Darwin's “light sensitive nerve” as an innovation, it is quite conceivable that over a period of time other intelligent cell communities were able to improve on the invention, leading to the variety of seeing eyes that we know now.-Pipe dream. Cambrian eyes arrive fully formed, no intermediates. Darwin had no idea of what really happened. 'Origins' is not a Bible. He knew about the problem of the Cambrian, but he presumed the intermediates would appear. 150 years and they haven't, and the obvious gap is gappier than ever. -> dhw: But I agree that individual innovations would have had to work quickly if they were to survive, since organisms would hardly persist in pursuing lost causes. If I had the answer, the Nobel Prize would be mine. -Your answer is NO intermediates. No Nobel so far.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
Apologies for the delay in this and other replies. dhw: 5) Evolution is driven by cooperation between intelligent cells that exploit changing environmental conditions in order to improve their way of life. (dhw)-DAVID: Problem is how did first life develop this so-called intelligence, which requires a mind? Your postulate is equal to my God-postulate, except I have a first cause as part of my theory, and you don't.-You seem yet again to have forgotten that your first cause is inexplicably intelligent energy, and my alternative is energy that inexplicably evolved its intelligence(s). dhw: Nobody knows how new species are formed, ...However, we need to differentiate here. Different strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders could be the result of trial and error, so long as the threat to the whole species is not immediate. DAVID: But we do not see any fossil evidence of trail and error. Look at the Cambrian.-I don't know why failed strategies or lifestyles would leave fossil evidence. A dead coral reef fish would be a dead coral reef fish, no matter what strategies etc, it adopted to avoid being eaten. It is the next point that you are referring to. -dhw: It's really structural innovations that are the problem. DAVID: Fossils will show structural innovations, and they do as full-blown new species, no itty-bitty attempts. Cambrian explosion is why I don't question my conclusions.-Nobody has solved the mystery of the Cambrian, and you have said that not even your fellow ID-ers accept your conclusions (see below). dhw: However, unlike adaptation, innovation is not a matter of survival but of exploiting new conditions in order to make improvements, which would not necessarily mean succeeding “at first try”. DAVID: Same answer as always: the same bacteria, in three classes, are still here unchanged after 3.6 billion years of change on Earth. Humans arrived and apes and monkeys didn't evolve during the same period.-The fact that bacteria have survived but not evolved proves my point that innovation need not be a matter of survival, and would therefore not demand success “at first try”. dhw: I'm really not sure how we would be able to identify an intermediate form. We won't find many soft tissues anyway, and a few bones won't carry a label saying: "I was a flonk on its way to becoming a flink." DAVID: Paleontologists would be insulted by your comment. Lots of soft tissue stuff is turning up now. [...]-It makes no difference: the soft tissue they do find will still be fully formed. And the fossils still won't carry that label because - next point:-dhw: Any fossil will be of an organism that existed in its own right. However, if we take Darwin's “light sensitive nerve” as an innovation, it is quite conceivable that over a period of time other intelligent cell communities were able to improve on the invention, leading to the variety of seeing eyes that we know now. DAVID: Pipe dream. Cambrian eyes arrive fully formed, no intermediates. Darwin had no idea of what really happened. 'Origins' is not a Bible. He knew about the problem of the Cambrian, but he presumed the intermediates would appear. 150 years and they haven't, and the obvious gap is gappier than ever. -Of course they were fully formed. My point above is that functioning inventions can be continually improved on by intelligent “minds”, and each improvement will be an organ in itself, not an intermediate form. You are quick to dismiss this as a pipe dream, so what are your alternative explanations for the absence of intermediates? A computer programme devised by some unknown intelligence 3.8 billion years ago, placed in the first cells and containing every single evolutionary innovation, suddenly switched on its “fish-out-of-water” device inside Freddy Fish's genome, and lo and behold he did walk out of the water flexing his thigh muscles and breathing in the fresh air through his brand new lungs. Or this unknown intelligence somehow reached inside Freddy Fish and said, “I really want to create humans, but here, Freddy, let me give thee two pairs of legs and some lungs, and then thou mayest step forth onto dry land.” No one has an explanation for the Cambrian, or for life, or for consciousness, and all the hypotheses so far are “pipe dreams”. Not a bad reason for agnosticism.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Monday, November 02, 2015, 14:10 (3095 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You seem yet again to have forgotten that your first cause is inexplicably intelligent energy, and my alternative is energy that inexplicably evolved its intelligence(s).-Inexplicable is a wonderful word. At least I look for reasonable explanations. Accept God and everything fits. > > dhw: I don't know why failed strategies or lifestyles would leave fossil evidence.-But that is exactly what dead animals do, leave fossils, good strategy or bad.-> dhw: The fact that bacteria have survived but not evolved proves my point that innovation need not be a matter of survival, and would therefore not demand success “at first try”.-Your comment does not explain the gaps in complexity which in the Cambrian is enormous. Darwin recognized the problem, but his hoped-for fossil intermediates have never appeared. To make these leaps advance planning must understand the challenges to life that will exist in the new environment with many new challenging organisms to contend with. > > dhw: It makes no difference: the soft tissue they do find will still be fully formed. -You miss my point. The excuse for gaps is that soft tissue won't fossilize, but it does and it doesn't close the gaps.-> dhw: My point above is that functioning inventions can be continually improved on by intelligent “minds”, and each improvement will be an organ in itself, not an intermediate form. You are quick to dismiss this as a pipe dream, -Absolutely a PD. Didn't you ever hear of trial and error? That is how Edison made most of his inventions. Darwin's theory is the same thing. In your view first life arrived and began thinking how to make itself better. And survives to this day without change, so change was not required.-> dhw:No one has an explanation for the Cambrian, or for life, or for consciousness, and all the hypotheses so far are “pipe dreams”. Not a bad reason for agnosticism.-No-nothingism.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
dhw: You seem yet again to have forgotten that your first cause is inexplicably intelligent energy, and my alternative is energy that inexplicably evolved its intelligence(s). DAVID: Inexplicable is a wonderful word. At least I look for reasonable explanations. Accept God and everything fits.-You are simply saying that I should accept an unknown power of unknown origin and of unknown nature as a “reasonable explanation”. Accept a lucky combination in an infinite number of combinations, and everything fits. I do not see either hypothesis as reasonable.-dhw: The fact that bacteria have survived but not evolved proves my point that innovation need not be a matter of survival, and would therefore not demand success “at first try”. DAVID: Your comment does not explain the gaps in complexity which in the Cambrian is enormous.-As I commented at the end, no one has an explanation. That does not invalidate my point.-dhw: It makes no difference: the soft tissue they do find will still be fully formed. DAVID: You miss my point. The excuse for gaps is that soft tissue won't fossilize, but it does and it doesn't close the gaps.-You miss my point. No one has an explanation for the gaps, regardless of whether the fossils are bones or soft tissue.-dhw: My point above is that functioning inventions can be continually improved on by intelligent “minds”, and each improvement will be an organ in itself, not an intermediate form. You are quick to dismiss this as a pipe dream... DAVID: Absolutely a PD. Didn't you ever hear of trial and error? That is how Edison made most of his inventions. Darwin's theory is the same thing. In your view first life arrived and began thinking how to make itself better. And survives to this day without change, so change was not required.-If bacteria are individual, sentient, cognitive, intelligent beings, as some eminent scientists claim, then some will follow the same old routine but others will explore new possibilities, especially when they combine. Multicellularity is the key to innovation, and innovation - as I keep saying - is not a matter of survival but of improvement. Improvement is not “required”, but is the product of intelligent “minds”. dhw: No one has an explanation for the Cambrian, or for life, or for consciousness, and all the hypotheses so far are “pipe dreams”. Not a bad reason for agnosticism. DAVID: No-nothingism.-Or rather know-nothingism. Why pretend you know something you can't possibly know? That is why you have to resort to faith.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 03, 2015, 12:22 (3094 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Your comment does not explain the gaps in complexity which in the Cambrian is enormous. > > dhw: As I commented at the end, no one has an explanation. That does not invalidate my point.-It seems you cannot see the enormous jump in complexity, whole organ systems from simple sheets of cells requires planning. Only a mind can do that.-> DAVID: You miss my point. The excuse for gaps is that soft tissue won't fossilize, but it does and it doesn't close the gaps. > > dhw: You miss my point. No one has an explanation for the gaps, regardless of whether the fossils are bones or soft tissue.-Of course there is no logical explanation at a natural level. that is why the supernatural is required. > > dhw: If bacteria are individual, sentient, cognitive, intelligent beings, as some eminent scientists claim, then some will follow the same old routine but others will explore new possibilities, especially when they combine. Multicellularity is the key to innovation, and innovation - as I keep saying - is not a matter of survival but of improvement. Improvement is not “required”, but is the product of intelligent “minds”.-But multicellularity is an enormous jump in and of itself. Simply invoking it does not solve the problem of producing it from simple single celled organisms, which you presume act like an ant colony. > > dhw: Or rather know-nothingism. Why pretend you know something you can't possibly know? That is why you have to resort to faith.-Inference to best solution.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
DAVID: Your comment does not explain the gaps in complexity which in the Cambrian is enormous. dhw: As I commented at the end, no one has an explanation. That does not invalidate my point. DAVID: It seems you cannot see the enormous jump in complexity, whole organ systems from simple sheets of cells requires planning. Only a mind can do that.-I see it. I cannot explain it. No one can explain it. A mind could do it. Millions of minds could do it. A mind could create millions of minds to do it.-DAVID: You miss my point. The excuse for gaps is that soft tissue won't fossilize, but it does and it doesn't close the gaps. dhw: You miss my point. No one has an explanation for the gaps, regardless of whether the fossils are bones or soft tissue. DAVID: Of course there is no logical explanation at a natural level. that is why the supernatural is required.-Nothing is “required”. If there is no logical explanation, one can keep an open mind. But as always I must remind you that the intelligent cell hypothesis does not exclude your God. -dhw: If bacteria are individual, sentient, cognitive, intelligent beings, as some eminent scientists claim, then some will follow the same old routine but others will explore new possibilities, especially when they combine. Multicellularity is the key to innovation, and innovation - as I keep saying - is not a matter of survival but of improvement. Improvement is not “required”, but is the product of intelligent “minds”. DAVID: But multicellularity is an enormous jump in and of itself. Simply invoking it does not solve the problem of producing it from simple single celled organisms, which you presume act like an ant colony.-I presume nothing. I offer cellular cooperation as an alternative hypothesis to your all-encompassing computer programme. However, since we know that single-celled organisms are capable of cooperation, it is not unreasonable to suppose that multicellularity took place through the cooperation of single-celled organisms! This is not an invocation but an explanation. Simply invoking a supernatural intelligence does not solve the problem of producing it from first-cause energy. -dhw: Or rather know-nothingism. Why pretend you know something you can't possibly know? That is why you have to resort to faith. DAVID: Inference to best solution.-Best by what criteria? Stick to faith!
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 04, 2015, 22:20 (3093 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: It seems you cannot see the enormous jump in complexity, whole organ systems from simple sheets of cells requires planning. Only a mind can do that. > > dhw:I see it. I cannot explain it. No one can explain it. A mind could do it. Millions of minds could do it. A mind could create millions of minds to do it.-Of course you see it, and you admit chance can't do it. A mind can do it.-> > dhw: Nothing is “required”. If there is no logical explanation, one can keep an open mind. But as always I must remind you that the intelligent cell hypothesis does not exclude your God. -Wouldn't you like a rational explanation? An open mind to no conclusions. - > dhw: I presume nothing. I offer cellular cooperation as an alternative hypothesis to your all-encompassing computer programme.... Simply invoking a supernatural intelligence does not solve the problem of producing it from first-cause energy. -If it always existed, as something must have, it is a fine answer. > > dhw: Or rather know-nothingism. Why pretend you know something you can't possibly know? That is why you have to resort to faith. > DAVID: Inference to best solution. > > dhw: Best by what criteria? Stick to faith!-But that is what Darwin did with his so-called theory.!
More about how evolution works: look at the video
DAVID: Of course there is no logical explanation at a natural level. That is why the supernatural is required. dhw: Nothing is “required”. If there is no logical explanation, one can keep an open mind. But as always I must remind you that the intelligent cell hypothesis does not exclude your God. DAVID: Wouldn't you like a rational explanation? An open mind to no conclusions. We would all like a rational explanation, but there isn't one. Since when was the supernatural a rational explanation? Since when was faith rational? And of course an open mind has no conclusions. I suspect that considerably more damage is done by those who have reached conclusions than by those who have not. (Present company not included, of course!)-dhw: I presume nothing. I offer cellular cooperation as an alternative hypothesis to your all-encompassing computer programme.... Simply invoking a supernatural intelligence does not solve the problem of producing it from first-cause energy. DAVID: If it always existed, as something must have, it is a fine answer.-I agree that something must always have existed, and I agree that energy and matter make for a “fine” answer. And intelligence that evolved is no less “fine” and no more irrational than intelligence that has simply existed for ever.-dhw: Or rather know-nothingism. Why pretend you know something you can't possibly know? That is why you have to resort to faith. DAVID: Inference to best solution. dhw: Best by what criteria? Stick to faith! DAVID: But that is what Darwin did with his so-called theory!-Why “so-called”? It IS a theory, but you yourself have agreed that there is enough scientific evidence for you to believe its basic tenet, which is common descent. You have agreed many times, however, that belief in the supernatural requires more than scientific evidence, so why compare the two? (That is not to denigrate your faith. Like you, I do not accept that science is the only path to truth.)
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Friday, November 06, 2015, 00:54 (3092 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Why “so-called”? It IS a theory, but you yourself have agreed that there is enough scientific evidence for you to believe its basic tenet, which is common descent. You have agreed many times, however, that belief in the supernatural requires more than scientific evidence, so why compare the two? -To me the main point of Darwin's work was to provide a mechanism from the apparent appearance of common sense evolution as to how it might have worked. Evolution, from what I have read, was a widely accepted possibility. Until Darwin explained his approach, how it might work was not. That is why I reference Darwin as I do.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by BBella , Monday, October 26, 2015, 05:42 (3103 days ago) @ dhw
edited by BBella, Monday, October 26, 2015, 05:48
The only intelligence we actually know of is our own,-I can't agree with that statement. To me, a bacteria, seed or cell, etc, all appears to interact intelligently (knows what to do) within it's place and surroundings. For the most part, be what it IS. > > BBELLA: It would seem to me that intelligence would need to have always been eternal just as energy and information has always been eternal, or nothing would have ever formed into what appears as intelligent order we see around us. Of course science believes intelligence has evolved - but that's intelligent matter using the information it has to reach this intelligent(?) conclusion. > > Again I don't know what you mean by eternal “information”. Information about what? About energy and matter transmuting themselves?-Information carried within energy. For example, scientist has data on most every known element. The only way a substance is known is its elemental make up. This recorded data is the information within the substance. ->I agree that there is order on our planet and in its relationship to other elements of our solar system, but that certainly doesn't mean there has been “intelligent order” throughout eternity, or in the approx. 100,000,000,000 solar systems like ours in each of the approx. 100,000,000,000 galaxies (don't worry, I haven't done the counting or the guessing!), which may have replaced and may be replaced by zillions more. Maybe they just ARE. -All that IS just IS, but all that IS is also constantly transforming matter into forms of order. If not, all that IS would just be a great space with no forms, only floating specks of matter going nowhere doing nothing . ->Mindless energy mindlessly transmuting itself into mindless matter. Order in a few grains of sand does not make for order in a thousand million miles of beach.-First off, it's a beach. That's intelligent order. It's not floating specks of matter going nowhere being nothing. If energy is transforming into something - anything, it's not truly without intelligent order. What we see here on earth is intelligent order; every thing is something. Even out in space, just as the Rover has recently found on Mars, there is something out there, open systems of some form and zillions of miles of space. It's not static space. Every thing is teaming with busy energy that vibrates information throughout the universe, all being what it IS. -> Dhw: As an alternative to this inexplicable hypothesis of David's, I have suggested that eternal energy has eternally transmuted itself into matter, and intelligence has inexplicably evolved through matter. > BBELLA: Or, could it be, intelligence has always (eternally) used information within energy to transform matter into what IS? > > Again, information about what? If we are thinking of life on planet Earth, the information has to be about matter - basically, how inanimate matter can be transformed into living matter. Perhaps how matter can be given life through energy? But this still doesn't give us a source of intelligence or any reason for believing that intelligence has been present for ever and ever.-It just seems to me if there has been something forever and ever, then there has also had to have been intelligence for ever and ever. If something IS, then it's some thing. Not no thing. Every thing is something. For me, that means every thing is in some intelligent form. > Dhw: This means that although energy is everywhere, intelligence is indeed divided up precisely as you describe: in zillions of entities. This would also fit in with Sheldrake (species consciousness is not the same as universal consciousness), but it dispenses with the idea of a single intelligence designing and manipulating the universe and everything in it. > > BBELLA: Or, possibly, as energy transforms (creates) it vibrates information throughout all that IS. And on SOME LEVEL (<--the operative words) all creation (intelligently?) detects or becomes aware of what is newly being created through vibration. This "sense" within all that IS that is doing the detecting of this vibration could be considered a universally conscious intelligence? Or, what some might call God. > > This ties in with the most universal concept of panpsychism, and ”SOME LEVEL” is indeed the operative expression. But although it may well be that cause and effect reverberate throughout the universe, if I throw a stone into the water, can I really assume that the stone and the ripples are conscious at ANY level of what they are doing? -No, I don't believe the stone and the water are conscious or aware of being what they are and what they are doing like humans are. But both are intelligent forms, being what they are - water and stone. They are not just dust floating in nothingness being nothing. So both are energetic matter, teaming with intelligent information of what they ARE, and connected to everything else at it's most basic energetic level. So at that level they ARE, they create vibration in every movement that reverberates throughout the universe, just as all things do.-Hope this makes some sense. It's late and I didn't have time to reread and edit before sending.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Saturday, October 17, 2015, 21:37 (3111 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: An accumulation of knowledge gleaned from thousands of millions of years' experience of changing material conditions, with corresponding advances, does not seem to me any less likely than a total grasp of all knowledge even before the materials exist. -How materials starting at an inorganic level develop biologically and learn from experience, even though for millions of years the repositories of knowledge, neurons, did not exist, is fully beyond me, unless here is a guiding hand or mind.-> dhw: However, it's 50/50 for me: two inexplicable hypotheses do not allow for a decision.-Enjoy our picket fence.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
Dhw: ...one of the reasons why I am an agnostic is that according to you intelligence doesn't need any neurons at all, let alone 100 billion of them. It just exists and has always been there, and you call it God, and that doesn't require any explanation. It is simply inexplicable. As far as my alternative is concerned, though, I will point out that, if we accept the concept of common descent, my 100 billion neurons took thousands of millions of years to assemble themselves, and in the beginning their ancestors were single cells (later combining and cooperating) that used their inexplicable “ability to gain knowledge, understand facts and then collate the material into reasonable conclusions.” An accumulation of knowledge gleaned from thousands of millions of years' experience of changing material conditions, with corresponding advances, does not seem to me any less likely than a total grasp of all knowledge even before the materials exist. (Some forms of your God do not have a total knowledge, but he would still have needed enough to create a universe and material life, which is just as inexplicable.)-DAVID: How materials starting at an inorganic level develop biologically and learn from experience, even though for millions of years the repositories of knowledge, neurons, did not exist, is fully beyond me, unless here is a guiding hand or mind.-You continue to ignore the fact that both hypotheses are inexplicable. Your guiding hand or mind - energy always BEING aware of itself - is every bit as inexplicable as my inorganic materials BECOMING aware of themselves.
More about how evolution works: look at the video
by David Turell , Sunday, October 18, 2015, 15:02 (3110 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You continue to ignore the fact that both hypotheses are inexplicable. Your guiding hand or mind - energy always BEING aware of itself - is every bit as inexplicable as my inorganic materials BECOMING aware of themselves.-There has to be a first cause with planning ability. I view the complexity we see and are as impossible without that entity. I view your version of evolving intelligence as totally impossible. From your words, it just happens, no impetus. I see only force and direction, which must have a source.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Monday, November 02, 2015, 15:04 (3095 days ago) @ David Turell
Multicellularity appeared independently a few times, but genetic studies suggest the gens for it were present in the single cells:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/30827/title/From-Simple-To-Complex/-"As some of the most ancient animals, sponges can provide information regarding the evolution of the metazoan lineage, but for true insights about the origin of multicellularity, scientists must look even further back on the evolutionary tree. Choanoflagellates, unicellular organisms that look remarkably similar to the feeding structures of sponges, are the closest living relatives of metazoans. It turns out that they also share a number of genes once thought to be unique to multicellular animals. Tyrosine kinases (TK), for example, enzymes that function in cell-cell interactions and regulation of development in animals, were identified in the choanoflagellates in the early part of this decade, and the first sequenced choanoflagellate genome, published in 2008, revealed that they have more TK genes than any animal—and many other components of the TK signaling pathway as well.-"As some of the most ancient animals, sponges can provide information regarding the evolution of the metazoan lineage, but for true insights about the origin of multicellularity, scientists must look even further back on the evolutionary tree. Choanoflagellates, unicellular organisms that look remarkably similar to the feeding structures of sponges, are the closest living relatives of metazoans. It turns out that they also share a number of genes once thought to be unique to multicellular animals. Tyrosine kinases (TK), for example, enzymes that function in cell-cell interactions and regulation of development in animals, were identified in the choanoflagellates in the early part of this decade, and the first sequenced choanoflagellate genome, published in 2008, revealed that they have more TK genes than any animal—and many other components of the TK signaling pathway as well.-***-"The genomic exploration of the evolution of multicellularity is really just beginning, but already, a trend is emerging. “Almost every month now we are seeing genes that were supposed to be exclusive to metazoans that are already present in their single-cell relatives,” says evolutionary biologist Iñaki Ruiz-Trillo of the University of Barcelona. “I think that means co-option of ancestral genes into new functions is important for evolutionary innovations like the origin of multicellularity.”-“'Probably the more data we collect, the fewer and fewer animal-specific genes there are going to be,” agrees Dunn. “And we're going to have to explain the origins of multicellularity in terms of changes in the way these gene products interact with each other.”-***-"Animals aren't the only multicellular organisms, of course, and thus not the only system applicable to the study of multicellularity's origins. In fact, multicellularity is believed to have evolved as many as 25 different times among living species. So while the search for metazoan origins may be riddled with uncertainty, perhaps scientists can draw inferences from the study of multicellularity in other lineages."-Comment: Very long and complex article. Looks like pre-planning to me. The discussion about supposed cooperation and conflict between cells as multicellularity develops makes me wonder what the author was smoking.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
DAVID: Multicellularity appeared independently a few times, but genetic studies suggest the genes for it were present in the single cells:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/30827/title/From-Simple-To-Complex/-Let me cherry-pick some quotes to point out the possible implications (my bold): -"Choanoflagellates, unicellular organisms that look remarkably similar to the feeding structures of sponges, are the closest living relatives of metazoans. It turns out that they also share a number of genes once thought to be unique to multicellular animals.” "I think that means co-option of ancestral genes into new functions is important for evolutionary innovations like the origin of multicellularity.” -“And we're going to have to explain the origins of multicellularity in terms of changes in the way these gene products interact with each other.”-"In fact, multicellularity is believed to have evolved as many as 25 different times among living species." David's comment: Very long and complex article. Looks like pre-planning to me. The discussion about supposed cooperation and conflict between cells as multicellularity develops makes me wonder what the author was smoking.-That is because you refuse even to consider the 50/50 possibility that cells are intelligent. What is responsible for “coopting” ancestral genes into new functions if not some form of organizing intelligence? If multicellularity evolved 25 different times, which of these is more likely: 1) that the 25 times were all preprogrammed for the sake of producing one species (humans), or 2) different cellular communities interacted and cooperated autonomously to work out different combinations (leading to the vast variety of species extant and extinct)? As far as pre-planning is concerned, here are three more quotes: -“But such transitions are not always smooth, as conflict can arise when selfish mutations result in cheaters that attempt to benefit from the group without contributing their fair share.” -“To defend themselves against such cheating, these new kinds of individuals must evolve mechanisms of conflict mediation.”-“These recurrent mutations in Volvox suggest that “the conflict between the individual cells and the interest of colony may still be going on,” he adds. Such conflict may limit the organism's complexity, as selection on individual cells battles with the whole organism's attempt to survive and reproduce, suggesting that perhaps the evolution of advanced multicellularity wasn't so easy after all.”-Sounds like individual intelligences to me. Why would your God preplan such conflicts if all he wanted to do was create humans? Ah, but you think the researchers have been smoking something, because how could cells possibly be individual and intelligent when the chances are only 50/50 and you happen to know which 50 is correct?
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 04, 2015, 23:31 (3093 days ago) @ dhw
David's comment: Very long and complex article. Looks like pre-planning to me. The discussion about supposed cooperation and conflict between cells as multicellularity develops makes me wonder what the author was smoking.-> dhw: As far as pre-planning is concerned, here are three more quotes: > > “But such transitions are not always smooth, as [b]conflict can arise when selfish mutations result in cheaters that attempt to benefit from the group without contributing their fair share.” [/b]> > “To defend themselves against such cheating, these new kinds of individuals must evolve mechanisms of conflict mediation.” > > “These recurrent mutations in Volvox suggest that “the conflict between the individual cells and the interest of colony may still be going on,” he adds. Such conflict may limit the organism's complexity, as selection on individual cells battles with the whole organism's attempt to survive and reproduce, suggesting that perhaps the evolution of advanced multicellularity wasn't so easy after all.” > > Sounds like individual intelligences to me. Why would your God preplan such conflicts if all he wanted to do was create humans? Ah, but you think the researchers have been smoking something, because how could cells possibly be individual and intelligent when the chances are only 50/50 and you happen to know which 50 is correct?-All of the above quotes are suppositions. Please read them closely. Why do you think I asked what he was smoking? What conflict? Bad mutations result in death, and most mutations end up in loss of information. Now he wants cells fighting with each other as they become cooperative communities! I guess he was there watching as multicellularity developed.-Quote miner! You ignored this quote I presented which is the info that made the pre-planning point:-"These genes that we previously thought were associated with complex multicellular animals really have to do with basic multicellular functions—to get the simplest multicellular animals, you have to have these genes present,” says Srivastava, who coauthored the analysis.-"As some of the most ancient animals, sponges can provide information regarding the evolution of the metazoan lineage, but for true insights about the origin of multicellularity, scientists must look even further back on the evolutionary tree. Choanoflagellates, unicellular organisms that look remarkably similar to the feeding structures of sponges, are the closest living relatives of metazoans. It turns out that they also share a number of genes once thought to be unique to multicellular animals. Tyrosine kinases (TK), for example, enzymes that function in cell-cell interactions and regulation of development in animals, were identified in the choanoflagellates in the early part of this decade, and the first sequenced choanoflagellate genome, published in 2008, revealed that they have more TK genes than any animal—and many other components of the TK signaling pathway as well."
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
DAVID: Multicellularity appeared independently a few times, but genetic studies suggest the genes for it were present in the single cells:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/30827/title/From-Simple-To-Complex/-David's comment: Very long and complex article. Looks like pre-planning to me. The discussion about supposed cooperation and conflict between cells as multicellularity develops makes me wonder what the author was smoking.-In my reply I quoted three passages about conflict and commented as follows: Dhw: Sounds like individual intelligences to me. Why would your God preplan such conflicts if all he wanted to do was create humans? Ah, but you think the researchers have been smoking something, because how could cells possibly be individual and intelligent when the chances are only 50/50 and you happen to know which 50 is correct? DAVID: All of the above quotes are suppositions. Please read them closely. Why do you think I asked what he was smoking? What conflict? Bad mutations result in death, and most mutations end up in loss of information. Now he wants cells fighting with each other as they become cooperative communities! I guess he was there watching as multicellularity developed.-As I understood it, he was basing his “suppositions” on his observation of volvocine algae: “Volvocine algae are aquatic, flagellated eukaryotes that range in complexity from unicellular species to a variety of colonial forms to multicellular Volvox, some of which boast up to 50,000 cells. This transition involved a series of key innovations, including cell-cell adhesion, inversion, and differentiation of somatic and germ cell lines. Two species in particular have become models for the evolution of multicellularity—the single-celled Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and the 2,000-or-so-celled Volvox carteri.” “These recurrent mutations in Volvox suggest that “the conflict between the individual cells and the interest of colony may still be going on,” he adds.-Of course it's conjecture, but why are your own “suppositions” more valid than his?-DAVID: Quote miner! You ignored this quote I presented which is the info that made the pre-planning point:-"These genes that we previously thought were associated with complex multicellular animals really have to do with basic multicellular functions—to get the simplest multicellular animals, you have to have these genes present,” says Srivastava, who coauthored the analysis. "As some of the most ancient animals, sponges can provide information regarding the evolution of the metazoan lineage, but for true insights about the origin of multicellularity, scientists must look even further back on the evolutionary tree. Choanoflagellates, unicellular organisms that look remarkably similar to the feeding structures of sponges, are the closest living relatives of metazoans. It turns out that they also share a number of genes once thought to be unique to multicellular animals. Tyrosine kinases (TK), for example, enzymes that function in cell-cell interactions and regulation of development in animals, were identified in the choanoflagellates in the early part of this decade, and the first sequenced choanoflagellate genome, published in 2008, revealed that they have more TK genes than any animal—and many other components of the TK signaling pathway as well."-I did not ignore this, but cherry-picked the quote I have put in bold. For me this is evidence of common descent, and taken in conjunction with other quotes that you have ignored, I asked: “If multicellularity evolved 25 different times, which of these is more likely: 1) that the 25 times were all preprogrammed for the sake of producing one species (humans), or 2) different cellular communities interacted and cooperated autonomously to work out different combinations (the vast variety of species extant and extinct)?” Preprogramming = planning. You have not answered.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Friday, November 06, 2015, 01:30 (3092 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: As I understood it, he was basing his “suppositions” on his observation of volvocine algae: “Volvocine algae are aquatic, flagellated eukaryotes that range in complexity from unicellular species to a variety of colonial forms to multicellular Volvox, some of which boast up to 50,000 cells. This transition involved a series of key innovations, including cell-cell adhesion, inversion, and differentiation of somatic and germ cell lines. Two species in particular have become models for the evolution of multicellularity—the single-celled Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and the 2,000-or-so-celled Volvox carteri.” > “These recurrent mutations in Volvox suggest that “the conflict between the individual cells and the interest of colony may still be going on,” he adds. > > Of course it's conjecture, but why are your own “suppositions” more valid than his?-He is interpreting conflict. I see no proof. > > > dhw: For me this is evidence of common descent, and taken in conjunction with other quotes that you have ignored, I asked: “If multicellularity evolved 25 different times, which of these is more likely: 1) that the 25 times were all preprogrammed for the sake of producing one species (humans), or 2) different cellular communities interacted and cooperated autonomously to work out different combinations (the vast variety of species extant and extinct)?” Preprogramming = planning. -Simon Conway Morris would call this convergence, which in his eyes means humans must arrive. "Life's Solution; Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe" 2003 U. Cambridge Press. I didn't answer because the article presents pre-planning in the genetic descriptions.-Why don't you comment on the articles I present, like in today's material molecule transport in the cell?
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
Dhw: Of course it's conjecture, but why are your own “suppositions” more valid than his? DAVID: He is interpreting conflict. I see no proof.-If there was proof, there would be no need for discussion. What proof do you have that multicellularity was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago to produce humans (not to mention the weaverbird and its nest)?-dhw: For me this is evidence of common descent, and taken in conjunction with other quotes that you have ignored, I asked: “If multicellularity evolved 25 different times, which of these is more likely: 1) that the 25 times were all preprogrammed for the sake of producing one species (humans), or 2) different cellular communities interacted and cooperated autonomously to work out different combinations (the vast variety of species extant and extinct)?” Preprogramming = planning. -DAVID: Simon Conway Morris would call this convergence, which in his eyes means humans must arrive. "Life's Solution; Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe" 2003 U. Cambridge Press. I didn't answer because the article presents pre-planning in the genetic descriptions.-Strange how you like to quote theistic scientists who agree with you, as if this gave your beliefs some authority, whereas when I quote the scientists on whose research I have based my cellular intelligence hypothesis, they are dismissed as being in a minority. I wonder how many other palaeontologists (not to mention biologists) believe that God planned evolution around humans. QUOTE: "In fact, multicellularity is believed to have evolved as many as 25 different times among living species. So while the search for metazoan origins may be riddled with uncertainty, perhaps scientists can draw inferences from the study of multicellularity in other lineages." Regardless of Simon Conway Morris's beliefs, I'm sorry, but I still can't see how 25 separate evolutions can be taken as evidence for the planning of a single species.-DAVID: Why don't you comment on the articles I present, like in today's material molecule transport in the cell?-I'm afraid I have to pick and choose which articles to comment on, or I would spend all day talking to you, which would be a pleasure but would result in the neglect of other necessary tasks! However, let me assure you that I read everything you post, and find most of it genuinely fascinating and educational. The walking kinesin actually made me laugh, but your comment (“Of course chance invention cannot create this”) does not require further discussion, since we have long since agreed that the complexities of life are not the product of chance. We have a similar situation with the article on lichens
avid's comment: How did all these guys get together to develop this complex balance of nature which makes soil from rock and helps with nutrition in so many ways? Not chance. Remember all land on Earth started as rock. Soil came later. Looks like god planning to me.-Yet another example of symbiosis, in which organisms - including plants - may be said to work out their own ways to survive. But if you believe all the details were planned and included in a computer programme God implanted in the first cells 3.8 billion years ago (along with the weaverbird's nest and the monarch's lifestyle and the wasp larva on the spider's back) in order to produce humans, so be it.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Friday, November 06, 2015, 21:21 (3091 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Strange how you like to quote theistic scientists who agree with you, as if this gave your beliefs some authority,-Surprise!--> dhw: I wonder how many other palaeontologists (not to mention biologists) believe that God planned evolution around humans.-My guess is the ID folks and some others > > dhw: Regardless of Simon Conway Morris's beliefs, I'm sorry, but I still can't see how 25 separate evolutions can be taken as evidence for the planning of a single species.-You will have to read his book. > > DAVID: Why don't you comment on the articles I present, like in today's material molecule transport in the cell?- > dhw:(“Of course chance invention cannot create this”) does not require further discussion, since we have long since agreed that the complexities of life are not the product of chance.-The reason I keep showing the increasing scientific knowledge of the complexity of living matter is to make just that point. Chance doesn't work, so design must happen. You've invented a wild scheme having cells get together and design their future functions and forms. > > dhw: Yet another example of symbiosis, in which organisms - including plants - may be said to work out their own ways to survive. But if you believe all the details were planned and included in a computer programme God implanted in the first cells 3.8 billion years ago ... in order to produce humans, so be it.-And so it was!
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
QUOTE: “In fact, multicellularity is believed to have evolved as many as 25 different times among living species.” dhw: Regardless of Simon Conway Morris's beliefs, I'm sorry, but I still can't see how 25 separate evolutions can be taken as evidence for the planning of a single species. DAVID: You will have to read his book.-I thought you agreed with him. If you do, then please explain why YOU think 25 separate evolutions can be taken as evidence for the planning of a single species. Or do you agree with me that this is illogical and therefore 25 separate evolutions suggest that your theory is wrong?-DAVID: Why don't you comment on the articles I present, like in today's material molecule transport in the cell? dhw:(“Of course chance invention cannot create this”) does not require further discussion, since we have long since agreed that the complexities of life are not the product of chance. DAVID: The reason I keep showing the increasing scientific knowledge of the complexity of living matter is to make just that point. Chance doesn't work, so design must happen. You've invented a wild scheme having cells get together and design their future functions and forms.-You are constantly telling me that your all-knowing God is perfectly capable of endowing the first cells with a computer programme for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder to be passed down over some 3,800,000,000 years, and to be switched on in individual organisms whenever the environment is right, even though he may not be in control of the environment. Alternatively, he intervenes to teach the weaverbird how to build its nest, although all he really wants to do is to produce humans. And yet, despite all the evidence of intelligent behaviour from humans right back to microbes, the idea that your God might have designed a form of intelligence to enable organisms to work out their own way to improvement is a “wild scheme”. dhw: Yet another example of symbiosis, in which organisms - including plants - may be said to work out their own ways to survive. But if you believe all the details were planned and included in a computer programme God implanted in the first cells 3.8 billion years ago ... in order to produce humans, so be it. DAVID: And so it was!-And there you were, complaining that our author was guilty of mere suppositions without proof, and commenting: “I guess he was there watching as multicellularity developed.” Ah well, I guess it was you who were there watching.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Saturday, November 07, 2015, 15:49 (3090 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: “In fact, multicellularity is believed to have evolved as many as 25 different times among living species.” > dhw: Regardless of Simon Conway Morris's beliefs, I'm sorry, but I still can't see how 25 separate evolutions can be taken as evidence for the planning of a single species. > DAVID: You will have to read his book. > > dhw: I thought you agreed with him. If you do, then please explain why YOU think 25 separate evolutions can be taken as evidence for the planning of a single species. Or do you agree with me that this is illogical and therefore 25 separate evolutions suggest that your theory is wrong?-His book explains his thesis. Of course I feel he makes a strong point: If life's evolution can invent an advance in necessary complexity 5-6 times, as in eye development, and he describes many other convergences, then the process of evolution is programmed to produce the necessary complexity to produce humans. > > dhw: You are constantly telling me that your all-knowing God is perfectly capable of endowing the first cells with a computer programme for every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder to be passed down over some 3,800,000,000 years, and to be switched on in individual organisms whenever the environment is right, even though he may not be in control of the environment.-In the past we have discussed a possible 'inventive mechanism'. Conway Morris' convergence is his attempt at that concept. Living organisms have invented the same thing many times over as hiss book illustrates. -> dhw:And yet, despite all the evidence of intelligent behaviour from humans right back to microbes, the idea that your God might have designed a form of intelligence to enable organisms to work out their own way to improvement is a “wild scheme”.-If the instructions are within the organism for inventions, then they invent. Remember I think the odds are 90% those instructions exist. Conway Morris agrees, and I believe he is Dept. head of palebiololgy at Cambridge:-"Convergence is, in my opinion, not only deeply fascinating but, curiously, it is as often overlooked. More importantly, it hints at the existence of a deeper structure to biology. It helps us to delineate a metaphorical map across which evolution must navigate. In this sense the Darwinian mechanisms and the organic substrate we call life are really a search engine to discover particular solutions, including intelligence and—risky thought—perhaps deeper realities? Astronomy and Geophysics: Vol. 46, No. 4: "Aliens like us?" (From Wiki quotes)-> > dhw: And there you were, complaining that our author was guilty of mere suppositions without proof, and commenting: “I guess he was there watching as multicellularity developed.” Ah well, I guess it was you who were there watching.-I wish I had. It would answer lots of questions, like why it ever bothered to happen. It didn't need to, unless evolution was somehow pushed!
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
dhw: Regardless of Simon Conway Morris's beliefs, I'm sorry, but I still can't see how 25 separate evolutions can be taken as evidence for the planning of a single species.-DAVID: His book explains his thesis. Of course I feel he makes a strong point: If life's evolution can invent an advance in necessary complexity 5-6 times, as in eye development, and he describes many other convergences, then the process of evolution is programmed to produce the necessary complexity to produce humans. -I am very happy with the concept of convergence, which fits in perfectly with the concept of the intelligent cell, and we all know that evolution produced the necessary complexity to produce humans, since we are here. It also produced the necessary complexity to produce the duck-billed platypus which is here too, and dinosaurs which are not here. You can repeat your anthropocentric theory as often as you like, but if you can't explain why 25 evolutions of multicellularity are necessary to produce one species, perhaps that is because your theory might be wrong. DAVID: In the past we have discussed a possible 'inventive mechanism'. Conway Morris' convergence is his attempt at that concept. Living organisms have invented the same thing many times over as his book illustrates.-Again, I am happy to accept convergence, to which most of your post is devoted. Your concept of the inventive mechanism is totally different from mine, which is autonomous, whereas yours is preprogrammed (though you sometimes try to disguise its automaticity with the weasel word “semi-autonomous”). Convergence only tells us that the same thing has been invented “many times over”. It doesn't tell us what did the inventing. You have read Conway Morris's book. If, as a theist, he does not specify his belief in your 3.8-billion-year computer programme for all innovations or that all 25 evolutions of multicellularity were directly dabbled by his God, you cannot call on him for support. Who knows, he might even believe that his God endowed living organisms with the intelligence to invent things for themselves!-DAVID: If the instructions are within the organism for inventions, then they invent. Remember I think the odds are 90% those instructions exist.-Once more you are trying to blur the dividing lines. The invention is done by the ”mind” that issued the instructions. The odds are 100% that the “instructions” exist, since the inventing took place. The question, as always, is where the instructions came from: your God's 3.8-billion-year programme, his direct intervention, or an autonomous intelligence which he may have invented. (See also under “brain complexity”.)
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Sunday, November 08, 2015, 16:39 (3089 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Regardless of Simon Conway Morris's beliefs, I'm sorry, but I still can't see how 25 separate evolutions can be taken as evidence for the planning of a single species. > > DAVID: His book explains his thesis. Of course I feel he makes a strong point: If life's evolution can invent an advance in necessary complexity 5-6 times, as in eye development, and he describes many other convergences, then the process of evolution is programmed to produce the necessary complexity to produce humans. > > DAVID: In the past we have discussed a possible 'inventive mechanism'. Conway Morris' convergence is his attempt at that concept. Living organisms have invented the same thing many times over as his book illustrates. > > Again, I am happy to accept convergence, to which most of your post is devoted. ... If, as a theist, he does not specify his belief in your 3.8-billion-year computer programme for all innovations or that all 25 evolutions of multicellularity were directly dabbled by his God, you cannot call on him for support. -No, he doesn't tell us how it is done, but he believes in humans as the purpose, as I do. I don't know how it was done.... so? Of course he supports me! -> > DAVID: If the instructions are within the organism for inventions, then they invent. Remember I think the odds are 90% those instructions exist. > > dhw: The invention is done by the ”mind” that issued the instructions. The odds are 100% that the “instructions” exist, since the inventing took place. The question, as always, is where the instructions came from: your God's 3.8-billion-year programme, his direct intervention, or an autonomous intelligence which he may have invented. -I agree to all of that statement. Now take God away from your statement and tell me how it might have reasonably happened? I don't think you can.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
DAVID: In the past we have discussed a possible 'inventive mechanism'. Conway Morris' convergence is his attempt at that concept. Living organisms have invented the same thing many times over as his book illustrates. Dhw: Again, I am happy to accept convergence, to which most of your post is devoted. ... If, as a theist, he does not specify his belief in your 3.8-billion-year computer programme for all innovations or that all 25 evolutions of multicellularity were directly dabbled by his God, you cannot call on him for support. -DAVID: No, he doesn't tell us how it is done, but he believes in humans as the purpose, as I do. I don't know how it was done.... so? Of course he supports me! -We are referring to two different subjects. He may support your hypothesis that God planned evolution to produce humans. He does not offer you support for your hypothesis that God preprogrammed everything in the first cells, or God dabbled directly. You don't know how it was done, but you insist it was one or other of these methods, and you also insist it was not done by cellular intelligence. My point is that if Conway Morris doesn't offer his own hypothesis as to how it was done, he cannot be said to support yours against mine.-DAVID: If the instructions are within the organism for inventions, then they invent. Remember I think the odds are 90% those instructions exist. dhw: The invention is done by the ”mind” that issued the instructions. The odds are 100% that the “instructions” exist, since the inventing took place. The question, as always, is where the instructions came from: your God's 3.8-billion-year programme, his direct intervention, or an autonomous intelligence which he may have invented. -DAVID: I agree to all of that statement. Now take God away from your statement and tell me how it might have reasonably happened? I don't think you can.-I can't tell you how it might reasonably have happened even if I include God. The God hypothesis is no more “reasonable” than any other.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Monday, November 09, 2015, 15:53 (3088 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: We are referring to two different subjects. He may support your hypothesis that God planned evolution to produce humans. He does not offer you support for your hypothesis that God preprogrammed everything in the first cells, or God dabbled directly. -No he doesn't get into the method God used at all. His point is that convergence indicates purpose and therefore planning for humans as the highest purpose.-> > DAVID: I agree to all of that statement. Now take God away from your statement and tell me how it might have reasonably happened? I don't think you can. > > dhw: I can't tell you how it might reasonably have happened even if I include God. The God hypothesis is no more “reasonable” than any other.-That is true, because one must reach for oneself proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
dhw: We are referring to two different subjects. He may support your hypothesis that God planned evolution to produce humans. He does not offer you support for your hypothesis that God preprogrammed everything in the first cells, or God dabbled directly. DAVID: No he doesn't get into the method God used at all. His point is that convergence indicates purpose and therefore planning for humans as the highest purpose.-Not having read the book, I can only discuss the points you make. Convergence fits in perfectly with the hypothesis that intelligent organisms work things out independently for themselves in accordance with the requirements of their different environments. The obvious purpose in all cases is to make maximum use of the environment (for survival and/or improvement). In order to justify your belief in a “higher”, divine, anthropocentric purpose, I do wish you and/or Conway Morris would explain why your God found it necessary to organize 25 evolutions of multicellularity in order to produce one species, but I can understand why you'd rather avoid such a question. -DAVID: I agree to all of that statement. Now take God away from your statement and tell me how it might have reasonably happened? I don't think you can. dhw: I can't tell you how it might reasonably have happened even if I include God. The God hypothesis is no more “reasonable” than any other.-DAVID: That is true, because one must reach for oneself proof beyond a reasonable doubt.-In other words, when you talk rather grandly of “proving God's existence beyond a reasonable doubt”, what you really mean is explaining the reasons for your own subjective convictions. It doesn't have quite the same authoritative ring, does it?
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 11, 2015, 01:06 (3087 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:In order to justify your belief in a “higher”, divine, anthropocentric purpose, I do wish you and/or Conway Morris would explain why your God found it necessary to organize 25 evolutions of multicellularity in order to produce one species, but I can understand why you'd rather avoid such a question.-Avoiding nothing: evolution proceeds from simple to complex. Convergence is evidence of this drive to complexity. Humans are the most complex. Therefore convergence is evidence for the intended arrival of humans. > > DAVID: That is true, because one must reach for oneself proof beyond a reasonable doubt. > > dhw: In other words, when you talk rather grandly of “proving God's existence beyond a reasonable doubt”, what you really mean is explaining the reasons for your own subjective convictions. It doesn't have quite the same authoritative ring, does it?-If one of the great philosophers of the 20th Century touts the method, why shouldn't I. You seem to forget, find the evidence then make up your mind. Ergo, agnostic to belief.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
dhw: In order to justify your belief in a “higher”, divine, anthropocentric purpose, I do wish you and/or Conway Morris would explain why your God found it necessary to organize 25 evolutions of multicellularity in order to produce one species, but I can understand why you'd rather avoid such a question.-DAVID: Avoiding nothing: evolution proceeds from simple to complex. Convergence is evidence of this drive to complexity. Humans are the most complex. Therefore convergence is evidence for the intended arrival of humans. Convergence is evidence of different species coming up with similar solutions to similar problems. I don't see that as evidence of the drive to complexity. Drive to variety, maybe. Anyway, some solutions can be simpler than others. That leaves us with the argument that evolution proceeds from simple to complex. The human brain is the most complex, but the dog's nose is more complex than the human nose. So the human brain is evidence for the arrival of... the human brain, and the dog's nose is evidence for the arrival of...the dog's nose. In other words, perhaps that's simply how it all worked out or, to take a leaf out of BBella's book, what IS is. Where do you get “intended” from? And you still haven't explained why you think your God found it necessary to organize 25 evolutions of multicellularity in order to produce one species. DAVID: ...one must reach for oneself proof beyond a reasonable doubt. dhw: In other words, when you talk rather grandly of “proving God's existence beyond a reasonable doubt”, what you really mean is explaining the reasons for your own subjective convictions. It doesn't have quite the same authoritative ring, does it?-DAVID: If one of the great philosophers of the 20th Century touts the method, why shouldn't I. You seem to forget, find the evidence then make up your mind. Ergo, agnostic to belief.-“Proving beyond a reasonable doubt” carries all the weight of a legal judgement. It is as close to objectivity as one can hope to get in a court of law. Explaining one's personal religious beliefs is a different kettle of fish.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 11, 2015, 18:38 (3086 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Where do you get “intended” from? And you still haven't explained why you think your God found it necessary to organize 25 evolutions of multicellularity in order to produce one species.-You asked for Simon Conway Morris' reasoning. I've given it to you. > > DAVID: If one of the great philosophers of the 20th Century touts the method, why shouldn't I. You seem to forget, find the evidence then make up your mind. Ergo, agnostic to belief. > > dhw: “Proving beyond a reasonable doubt” carries all the weight of a legal judgement. It is as close to objectivity as one can hope to get in a court of law. Explaining one's personal religious beliefs is a different kettle of fish.-I'm simply following Adler.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
dhw: Where do you get “intended” from? And you still haven't explained why you think your God found it necessary to organize 25 evolutions of multicellularity in order to produce one species.-DAVID: You asked for Simon Conway Morris' reasoning. I've given it to you.-Please tell me why YOU think your God found it necessary to organize 25 evolutions of multicellularity in order to produce one species.-DAVID: If one of the great philosophers of the 20th Century touts the method, why shouldn't I. You seem to forget, find the evidence then make up your mind. Ergo, agnostic to belief. -dhw: “Proving beyond a reasonable doubt” carries all the weight of a legal judgement. It is as close to objectivity as one can hope to get in a court of law. Explaining one's personal religious beliefs is a different kettle of fish.-DAVID: I'm simply following Adler.-I've never known you to “simply follow” without thinking things through for yourself! If you agree that “proving beyond a reasonable doubt” is not an expression applicable to such a subjective judgement as belief in God, then be brave: stand up to “one of the great philosophers of the 20th century”!
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Friday, November 13, 2015, 02:54 (3085 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: I'm simply following Adler. > > dhw: I've never known you to “simply follow” without thinking things through for yourself! If you agree that “proving beyond a reasonable doubt” is not an expression applicable to such a subjective judgement as belief in God, then be brave: stand up to “one of the great philosophers of the 20th century”!-Why should I? I've researched for 40 years. The evidence is very clear to me, although I cannot give you an absolute proof, which is impossible, unless God communicates directly with me. Then no one will believe my assertion that He did, unless they observe the event, as in Gospel stories.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
DAVID: I'm simply following Adler.-dhw: I've never known you to “simply follow” without thinking things through for yourself! If you agree that “proving beyond a reasonable doubt” is not an expression applicable to such a subjective judgement as belief in God, then be brave: stand up to “one of the great philosophers of the 20th century”!-DAVID: Why should I? I've researched for 40 years. The evidence is very clear to me, although I cannot give you an absolute proof, which is impossible, unless God communicates directly with me. Then no one will believe my assertion that He did, unless they observe the event, as in Gospel stories.-It was actually Romansh who started this off under “Scientific proof doesn't exist”, which “is why I bring you to task when you talk about proof.” For a change, I agreed with him. But he's now left us to it, while he freely exercises his unfree will to tread and retread other well-trodden paths. Meanwhile, however, you have recognized that “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” depends purely on your subjective interpretation of what is and is not reasonable, so I'm sure the jury will sympathize with you and will not even ask for a suspended sentence.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Friday, November 13, 2015, 16:04 (3084 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Meanwhile, however, you have recognized that “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” depends purely on your subjective interpretation of what is and is not reasonable, so I'm sure the jury will sympathize with you and will not even ask for a suspended sentence.-I've always known that the final judgment is subjective and require the addition of faith.
First multicellularity
by David Turell , Thursday, March 31, 2016, 16:29 (2945 days ago) @ David Turell
About 555 million years ago strands of algae without any sense of complexity appeared in the Ediacaran period before the Cambrian:-https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160322134110.htm-"But University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee paleontologist Stephen Dornbos and his research partners have discovered new clues in the quest. The team found fossils of two species of previously unknown ancient multicellular marine algae, what we now know as seaweed -- and they're among the oldest examples of multicellular life on Earth.-"Their age is estimated to be more than 555 million years old, placing the fossils in the last part of Precambrian times, called the Ediacaran Period. They provide a crucial view of Earth's earliest evolution of multicellular life, which scientists now think started millions of years earlier than previously thought.-***-"Certain kinds of sedimentary rocks, called Burgess Shale-type (BST) deposits, have the right characteristics to preserve soft-bodied organisms as thin carbon films. During the Cambrian Period, BST deposits are more common, and they preserve fossils of increasingly complex animals. But only a handful of Ediacaran BST deposits are known globally.-"Team members were searching for Ediacaran fossils in western Mongolia limestone when they uncovered a new BST deposit. That's where they found the seaweed fossils.-***-"BST fossils from the Ediacaran usually fall into two categories: multicellular algae, like seaweed, and fossils that are extremely difficult to classify, often the remains of extinct types of organisms. Consequently, Dornbos said, determining exactly what is preserved in Ediacaran fossil deposits can be hotly contested.-"'If you find a fossil from this time frame, you really need strong support for your interpretation of what it was," he said. "And the farther back you go in geologic time, the more contested the fossil interpretations are.'"-Comment: 'Hotly contested', but just simple plants, no animals.-********************-From the paper itself:-http://www.nature.com/articles/srep23438-"At this point, the Zuun-Arts biota is also similar to all other Ediacaran BST deposits in that it contains no unambiguous evidence for animals. Macroscopic animal-grade organisms are well known from other Ediacaran taphonomic windows, most notably in classical Ediacaran biota-style sandstone mold and cast preservational settings. With their sub-millimeter preservational capabilities, Ediacaran BST deposits should theoretically preserve animals relatively easily. This is certainly true of Cambrian BST deposits, which preserve a range of soft-bodied animal phyla in exquisite detail21. Although putative animal fossils have been described from Ediacaran BST deposits6, it remains unclear why they do not contain clear animal fossils. One possible explanation may be that the kind of animals that this preservational mode favors, such as ecdysozoans with their more preservable recalcitrant cuticle tissues22, simply did not exist yet."-Comment: BST refers to the Burgess Shale type deposits in Canada where the first Cambrian fossils sere found in the 1880's. The conclusion still must be there is a sharp distinction between the period of first simple plant (algae) multicellularity and the complex Cambrian animal multicellularity. The explosion that has no natural (Darwinian) explanation. No wonder Darwin was afraid of it.
First multicellularity: algae
by David Turell , Monday, May 09, 2016, 21:57 (2906 days ago) @ David Turell
Amoeba can come together and make stalk like structures and spores. Now an algae is found that is unicellular but the cells are held together in a gel and it has slightly differentiated parts:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-seaweed-rewrites-the-history-of-green-plants/?WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20160509-"A mysterious deep-ocean seaweed diverged from the rest of the green-plant family around 540 million years ago, developing a large body with a complex structure independently from all other sea or land plants. All of the seaweed's close relatives are unicellular plankton.-"The finding, published today in Scientific Reports, upends conventional wisdom about the early evolution of the plant kingdom. “People have always assumed that within the green-plant lineage, all the early branches were unicellular,” says Frederik Leliaert.-***-"With more genes in hand, the scientists could better compare Palmophyllales to an ever-growing collection of green algae. It also allowed the researchers to use phylogenetic software to pinpoint when Palmophyllales branched off from related plant species.-"It turns out that the group diverged from the rest just after the green plants themselves split into their two main lineages, back when such plants were newfangled upstarts.-"Brent Mishler, a botanist at the University of California, Berkeley, finds the new work to be convincing. “It nails down the relationships,” he says. “The green plants are one of the most diverse branches on the tree of life, with a half million species that range in size from planktonic unicells to redwood trees. This paper makes a huge contribution to unravelling how this enormous and important lineage got started.”-"But although Palmophyllales split off early from other plants, its macroscopic size might not have developed until later in its evolution. And Leliaert says that he's wary of calling the seaweed “multicellular” because its cells are undifferentiated and suspended in a stiff gel. Still, he says, the whole plant has a distinct structure that includes a root-like holdfast, a stem, and blades. How the cells of the plant communicate with one another remains unknown.-"For Charles Delwiche, a molecular systematist at the University of Maryland in College Park, and one of the principal investigators of the Assembling the Green Algal Tree of Life project that supported the work, the result shows how little is known about green algae, despite the fact that they gave rise to all land plants."-Comment: We still don't know the full story but it looks lie a beginning for plant multicellularity.
First multicellularity: algae
DAVID: Amoeba can come together and make stalk like structures and spores. Now an algae is found that is unicellular but the cells are held together in a gel and it has slightly differentiated parts:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-seaweed-rewrites-the-history-of-green...-QUOTES: "A mysterious deep-ocean seaweed diverged from the rest of the green-plant family around 540 million years ago, developing a large body with a complex structure independently from all other sea or land plants. All of the seaweed's close relatives are unicellular plankton."-“How the cells of the plant communicate with one another remains unknown.”-David's comment: We still don't know the full story but it looks like a beginning for plant multicellularity.-Another important breakthrough. The researchers do not seem to doubt that the cells DO communicate with one another, and if we follow Margulis, this would seem to be the key to evolutionary development: communication between cells.
First multicellularity: algae
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 10, 2016, 18:13 (2905 days ago) @ dhw
> David's comment: We still don't know the full story but it looks like a beginning for plant multicellularity. > > dhw: Another important breakthrough. The researchers do not seem to doubt that the cells DO communicate with one another, and if we follow Margulis, this would seem to be the key to evolutionary development: communication between cells.-Please describe how they communicate, if you disagree that they do it through molecular reactions.
First multicellularity: algae
dhw: Another important breakthrough. The researchers do not seem to doubt that the cells DO communicate with one another, and if we follow Margulis, this would seem to be the key to evolutionary development: communication between cells. DAVID: Please describe how they communicate, if you disagree that they do it through molecular reactions. - I quoted the researchers themselves: “How the cells of the plant communicate with one another remains unknown.” I think it's a bit unfair to expect me to provide the answer. But of course there has to be a material method of communication. Do humans communicate by telepathy? Our lungs provide air, our tongue and lips make movements, our vocal cords vibrate, and in someone else's ear there are tiny hair cells translating the vibrations into electrical signals that are sent through nerves to the brain, which interprets the signals. Does that mean we are automatons? Other organisms also use sounds, or chemicals, or movements. You try to confine communication to the means of communicating; it also involves the information to be communicated by one cell or set of cells to another, the processing of that information by the cells, and decisions on the actions to be taken. It would be more appropriate to ask how they come to their decisions. And the answer is: we don't know.
First multicellularity: algae
by David Turell , Wednesday, May 11, 2016, 14:55 (2904 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Please describe how they communicate, if you disagree that they do it through molecular reactions.[/i] -> I quoted the researchers themselves: “How the cells of the plant communicate with one another remains unknown.” I think it's a bit unfair to expect me to provide the answer. ..... It would be more appropriate to ask how they come to their decisions. And the answer is: we don't know.-Note my bolded section. I will continue to insist, based on scientific studies, when communication is picked apart it is molecular reactions that accomplish the task, based often on feedback loops if homeostasis is the issue. I've presented this type of stuff many, many times. I agree we do not fully understand the algorithms that dictate the chemical cascades.
First multicellularity: algae
DAVID: Please describe how they communicate, if you disagree that they do it through molecular reactions. -dhw: I quoted the researchers themselves: “How the cells of the plant communicate with one another remains unknown.” I think it's a bit unfair to expect me to provide the answer. ..... It would be more appropriate to ask how they come to their decisions. And the answer is: we don't know.-DAVID: Note my bolded section. I will continue to insist, based on scientific studies, when communication is picked apart it is molecular reactions that accomplish the task, based often on feedback loops if homeostasis is the issue. I've presented this type of stuff many, many times. I agree we do not fully understand the algorithms that dictate the chemical cascades.-I agree that communication is accomplished by molecular reactions if by that you mean chemical processes. And although you have changed the terminology from decision-making to algorithms (so much more scientific than your usual God's instructions), you have agreed that we don't know what it is that dictates the “chemical cascades”, i.e. how cells decide to react in a certain manner. "Fully understand” is one of those weasel expressions to suggest that we are almost there. No, we are not. Any more than we “fully understand” how humans reach decisions. And homeostasis is not THE issue. Our biggest problem is how cell communities innovate, i.e. decide to form new communities, but it may all be accomplished by the same mechanism. Your God's "instructions"? My cellular intelligence?
First multicellularity: algae
by David Turell , Thursday, May 12, 2016, 23:49 (2903 days ago) @ dhw
David: I agree we do not fully understand the algorithms that dictate the chemical cascades[/i]. > > I agree that communication is accomplished by molecular reactions if by that you mean chemical processes. And although you have changed the terminology from decision-making to algorithms (so much more scientific than your usual God's instructions), you have agreed that we don't know what it is that dictates the “chemical cascades”, i.e. how cells decide to react in a certain manner. "Fully understand” is one of those weasel expressions to suggest that we are almost there.-Sorry, either I'm not clear or you are twisting words. By 'fully understand' I did mean we are still learning how all these chemical reactions work in algorithms. They are being elucidated. Cell gets stimulus, cell responds with automatic chemical reactions, response may well be controlled by feedback loop of molecules. The Krebs cycle, which I have shown before is a typical loop which is stimulated. It is all chemicals, all automatic.-> dhw: Our biggest problem is how cell communities innovate, i.e. decide to form new communities, but it may all be accomplished by the same mechanism. Your God's "instructions"? My cellular intelligence? -Ah, still on the fence.
First multicellularity: algae
David: I agree we do not fully understand the algorithms that dictate the chemical cascades. dhw: I agree that communication is accomplished by molecular reactions if by that you mean chemical processes. And although you have changed the terminology from decision-making to algorithms (so much more scientific than your usual God's instructions), you have agreed that we don't know what it is that dictates the “chemical cascades”, i.e. how cells decide to react in a certain manner. "Fully understand” is one of those weasel expressions to suggest that we are almost there. DAVID: Sorry, either I'm not clear or you are twisting words. By 'fully understand' I did mean we are still learning how all these chemical reactions work in algorithms. They are being elucidated. Cell gets stimulus, cell responds with automatic chemical reactions, response may well be controlled by feedback loop of molecules. The Krebs cycle, which I have shown before is a typical loop which is stimulated. It is all chemicals, all automatic.-But that is the whole point at issue. You claim that all cellular activity (which must include evolutionary innovations and problem-solving) is made up of automatic chemical reactions preprogrammed by your God's instructions (algorithms). Then you claim that we are “still learning” about these. Some scientists argue for cellular intelligence, and you dismiss their findings. The truth is, we do not know how cellular communities solve problems and, crucially, have managed to reorganize themselves to create new organs (evolutionary innovation). Your approach is just like that of certain atheists who claim that we are still learning (or do not fully understand) how organic matter arose spontaneously from inorganic matter. Both sides have their basic premises, and then put the cart before the horse. -dhw: Our biggest problem is how cell communities innovate, i.e. decide to form new communities, but it may all be accomplished by the same mechanism. Your God's "instructions"? My cellular intelligence? DAVID: Ah, still on the fence.-My proposal of innovation through cellular intelligence is a hypothesis, not a belief. I don't know any more than you do. But in all honesty, I find it vastly more convincing than your own interpretation of evolution's higgledy-piggledy history. My fence-sitting relates to whether there is a God who set it all in motion.
First multicellularity: algae
by David Turell , Friday, May 13, 2016, 15:39 (2902 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: It is all chemicals, all automatic.[/i] > > dhw: But that is the whole point at issue. You claim that all cellular activity (which must include evolutionary innovations and problem-solving) is made up of automatic chemical reactions preprogrammed by your God's instructions (algorithms). Then you claim that we are “still learning” about these....Your approach is just like that of certain atheists who claim that we are still learning (or do not fully understand) how organic matter arose spontaneously from inorganic matter. Both sides have their basic premises, and then put the cart before the horse. -You keep refusing to look at my cart and misinterpret. The chemical algorithms exist and are partially understood, as science progresses in its analysis. God's instructions set up the chemical cascades and feedback loops. Those reactions are all automatic, following no instructions in present time. > > dhw: My proposal of innovation through cellular intelligence is a hypothesis, not a belief. I don't know any more than you do. But in all honesty, I find it vastly more convincing than your own interpretation of evolution's higgledy-piggledy history. My fence-sitting relates to whether there is a God who set it all in motion.-Your proposal that organisms try somehow to improve implies purposeful behavior. In my concept, from my first book, a built-in drive to complexity solves all of our objections. If living organisms are driven to various forms of complexity, it explains the bush of life, the weirdness of whales, and our eventual arrival. Anything that works and can survive, does.
First multicellularity: algae
As these posts are getting longer and longer and increasingly repetitive, I am telescoping them and will try to bring the issues into sharper focus. For argument's sake, I have accepted that God may have started life and invented the mechanisms for evolution. There are, however, two points at issue between David and me: 1) David insists that organisms are incapable of organizing themselves. Prime example to illustrate all the problems: the weaverbird's nest. 2) David insists that God's purpose was to produce and feed humans. My objection: why would God take the trouble to “guide” the weaverbird if what he wanted was to produce/feed humans? David agrees that the nest is one of the countless examples of phenomena that are not “critical to the scheme”. However, all the weird wonders create a balance in Nature, whereby all organisms that survive have something to eat. (I am reproducing the arguments. Whether they cohere is another matter, and David will no doubt correct any errors.) David believes evolution develops through a “drive to complexity”. I have proposed an alternative: God set up the mechanism for evolution whereby organisms are capable of organizing themselves (the intelligent cell), and all the weird wonders are the consequence of their individual efforts to survive and/or improve (“drive for improvement”). God may occasionally have dabbled. David objects because he believes all cellular behaviour is automatic, having been preprogrammed by God. That is the first point to be covered here: -DAVID: God's instructions set up the chemical cascades and feedback loops. Those reactions are all automatic, following no instructions in present time.-Billy Bacterium faces a brand new problem. According to you, God has set up instructions (to cover a few billion years - “no instructions in present time”), whereby Billy unthinkingly cascades and loops into the right solution. Shapiro and Co. think Billy works out the solution for himself because he is intelligent. And where do you think an atheist researcher - there are bound to be a few - would believe the instructions (if any) came from?-DAVID: Your proposal that organisms try somehow to improve implies purposeful behavior. -Of course. Does Billy Bacterium adapt for no reason? Do animals, birds, insects build their shelters, hunt their prey, flee their enemies without knowing what they're doing? This is the basis for speculating that their sense of purpose may go beyond that of survival. Some animals use tools to improve their chances of success. It's all purposeful behaviour. DAVID: If living organisms are driven to various forms of complexity, it explains the bush of life, the weirdness of whales, and our eventual arrival. Anything that works and can survive, does.-Agreed. But this does not explain why God “guided” the weaverbird to build its nest (one example among millions) as part of his plan to produce humans. Your problem escalates from now onhw: I don't see why even in your scenario God would try to complexify organisms just for the sake of it. DAVID: In order to drive evolution to the most complex of all, humans. Add this to: DAVID: Complexify and see what variations are better and survive. Makes God's work easier.-So either 1) God began the process of evolution without a clue where it was heading, or 2) He began the process of evolution wanting to produce humans, but did not have a clue how to do it. Every weird wonder (complexification) is an open-ended experiment to see which variations are better, and the more complexities he produces, the easier it becomes for him to work out how to produce humans? Where's all the planning you keep talking about? He's groping in the dark! On to the next anomaly: 	 DAVID: …I think the process of life is very inventive (we don't know how) but the weird species are everywhere. Dhw: What is this “process of life”? It sounds as if you are now suggesting that the process of life works independently of your God's plans and instructions.-DAVID: Correct. […]-Then he didn't “guide” the weaverbird to build its nest, and he is not in control (except for the occasional dabble), in which case he must have given organisms the means to complexify of their own accord. Enter the intelligent cell. Thank you.-Your Theory One: since organisms are incapable of organizing themselves, God personally “guided” all innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders to create a balance of Nature in order to produce/feed humans. Your Theory Two: he doesn't guide them because they act independently of his plans and instructions, creating a vast higgledy-piggledy array of complexities which sometimes lead to improvements and sometimes don't, but he watches to see which ones “are better and survive”, because a higgledy-piggledy collection of complexities makes his work easier. And that is how he fulfilled his purpose to create humans. Am I the only one who finds this confusing?
First multicellularity: algae
by David Turell , Saturday, May 14, 2016, 15:02 (2901 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: As these posts are getting longer and longer and increasingly repetitive, I am telescoping them and will try to bring the issues into sharper focus. > For argument's sake, I have accepted that God may have started life and invented the mechanisms for evolution. There are, however, two points at issue between David and me: 1) David insists that organisms are incapable of organizing themselves. Prime example to illustrate all the problems: the weaverbird's nest.-Big mistake in understanding my thought: Complexity refers only to structure of organisms, not their inventions like the nest. That is life-style. Weaver has his nest, birds and insects, turtles and salmon migrate and frankly I'm more puzzled by the development of whales, mammals under water (!), which is well-explained by sticking with increasing structural complexity as part of evolution's driving force. Structure allows life-style which is a different kind of adaptation than phenotypical changes. Structure and life-style act as forces on each other. - > dhw: 2) David insists that God's purpose was to produce and feed humans....However, all the weird wonders create a balance in Nature, whereby all organisms that survive have something to eat. (I am reproducing the arguments. ..David believes evolution develops through a “drive to complexity”.-This one is correct. Object to Mr. Weaver all you want. > > dhw: I have proposed an alternative: God set up the mechanism for evolution whereby organisms are capable of organizing themselves (the intelligent cell), and all the weird wonders are the consequence of their individual efforts to survive and/or improve (“drive for improvement”). -Here you accept God and purposeful mechanisms. Where is your agnosticism? We do see epigenetics which I think is certainly God-given and purposeful for adaptation. We now both have 'drives' which must be accepted as necessary. There remains no reason for the advance beyond bacteria- > dhw:God may occasionally have dabbled. David objects because he believes all cellular behaviour is automatic, having been preprogrammed by God. That is the first point to be covered here: > > DAVID: God's instructions set up the chemical cascades and feedback loops. Those reactions are all automatic, following no instructions in present time.-You are conflating dabbling with automatic processes. Cells and simple organisms function automatically, but God dabbles at the life-style level with more complex organisms (whales) and at the course correction level of evolution: He pushed bacteria to develop multicellularity. I can't define the 'push'. It is currently undiscovered. > > dhw: According to you, God has set up instructions (to cover a few billion years - “no instructions in present time”), Shapiro and Co. think Billy works out the solution for himself because he is intelligent. And where do you think an atheist researcher - there are bound to be a few - would believe the instructions (if any) came from?-The atheists are seeing epigenetic modifications and are struggling with accepting it. > > DAVID: Your proposal that organisms try somehow to improve implies purposeful behavior. > > dhw: Of course. Do animals, birds, insects build their shelters, hunt their prey, flee their enemies without knowing what they're doing? This is the basis for speculating that their sense of purpose may go beyond that of survival. Some animals use tools to improve their chances of success. It's all purposeful behaviour.-I agree, and who do you think gave such purposeful behavior (life-style) to them? Or gave them the ability to develop it? You will suggest a nicely balanced God-given, or worked it out for themselves, balanced on the fence.-> dhw: But this does not explain why God “guided” the weaverbird to build its nest (one example among millions) as part of his plan to produce humans. -Again, you have pounced on a side event of life-style, not structure, which is what advances in evolution. How the bird domiciles is a secondary argument of how did the bird do it, make such a complex invention. Either he did it or God did it, take your choice, as you do. > > dhw: in which case he must have given organisms the means to complexify of their own accord. Enter the intelligent cell. Thank you.-A drive to complexity is a force, not an intellectual choice. Evolution is driven.-> > dhw: Your Theory One: since organisms are incapable of organizing themselves, God personally “guided” all innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders to create a balance of Nature in order to produce/feed humans. Your Theory Two: he doesn't guide them because they act independently of his plans and instructions, > Am I the only one who finds this confusing?-In theory two you are the one creating confusion. God is in control, period!
First multicellularity: algae
dhw: There are, however, two points at issue between David and me: 1) David insists that organisms are incapable of organizing themselves. Prime example to illustrate all the problems: the weaverbird's nest. DAVID: Big mistake in understanding my thought: Complexity refers only to structure of organisms, not their inventions like the nest. That is life-style. - The mistake is yours, I'm afraid. This part of our disagreement does not concern complexity but the ability of organisms to organize their own innovations (structures), lifestyles and natural wonders, as opposed to their being “guided”. But by all means add complexifications to that list if you wish. dhw: 2) David insists that God's purpose was to produce and feed humans....However, all the weird wonders create a balance in Nature, whereby all organisms that survive have something to eat. (I am reproducing the arguments. ..David believes evolution develops through a “drive to complexity”. DAVID: This one is correct. Object to Mr. Weaver all you want. - It is the dislocation between the arguments (which you have left out) that I was drawing attention to. God guiding the weaverbird has nothing to do with the intention to produce/feed humans, and the fact that all surviving organisms must have something to eat is another non sequitur, since humans do not need to eat the weaverbird's nest. - dhw: According to you, God has set up instructions (to cover a few billion years - “no instructions in present time”), Shapiro and Co. think Billy works out the solution for himself because he is intelligent. And where do you think an atheist researcher - there are bound to be a few - would believe the instructions (if any) came from? DAVID: The atheists are seeing epigenetic modifications and are struggling with accepting it. - Accepting what? Do even your fellow theist researchers accept your theory that God implanted the first cells with instructions to enable bacteria to cope with every single problem for the next 3.8 billion years and onwards? - DAVID: Your proposal that organisms try somehow to improve implies purposeful behavior. dhw: Of course. Do animals, birds, insects build their shelters, hunt their prey, flee their enemies without knowing what they're doing? This is the basis for speculating that their sense of purpose may go beyond that of survival… DAVID: I agree, and who do you think gave such purposeful behavior (life-style) to them? […] - I have said explicitly that for the sake of argument I accept your premise that God gave it to them, because this discussion concerns how evolution works. Not did God do it or not, but did God guide organisms, or did he give them the means to guide themselves? - dhw: But this [the drive to complexity] does not explain why God “guided” the weaverbird to build its nest (one example among millions) as part of his plan to produce humans. DAVID: Again, you have pounced on a side event of life-style, not structure, which is what advances in evolution. How the bird domiciles is a secondary argument of how did the bird do it, make such a complex invention. Either he did it or God did it, take your choice, as you do. - But you have always insisted that God had to guide it, and THAT is the problem we started out with. If the bird has the intelligence to design something so complex, where can you draw the line? Maybe all other natural wonders and lifestyles are also the product of organisms' intelligence. And if they are THAT intelligent, maybe their cell communities are intelligent enough to produce their own evolutionary (structural) innovations or complexifications. The nest is the start of the slippery slope towards God giving organisms the means (intelligence) to innovate autonomously, thus creating the higgledy-piggledy bush. - DAVID: A drive to complexity is a force, not an intellectual choice. Evolution is driven. - But according to you evolution is driven with God's guidance at every step, and according to my hypothesis, it is driven from within by the organisms themselves: a drive for survival, and a drive for improvement. I still see no point in complexity for its own sake, but in the context of autonomy versus “guidance”, it makes no difference. If your drive to complexity is “free-ranging”, as you suggest in your protozoa post, you now appear to agree that organisms organize their own complexities (innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders) except when God dabbles. However…… - dhw: Your Theory Two: he doesn't guide them because they act independently of his plans and instructions. DAVID: In theory two you are the one creating confusion. God is in control, period! - But when I pointed out that your “inventive process of life” seemed to work independently of your God's plans and instructions, you said that was correct. If it is, then God deliberately sacrificed his control (though he could dabble when he wanted to). Perhaps you didn't mean to endorse my interpretation, so let's pose the question directly: do you believe God “guided” every innovation (structural change), lifestyle (the monarch's migratory pattern) and natural wonder (the weaverbird's nest) - all are complex in their different ways - or do you believe he gave organisms the ability to organize their own “free-ranging” complexities independently of any plans and instructions, other than when he dabbled?
First multicellularity: algae
by David Turell , Sunday, May 15, 2016, 20:56 (2900 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: It is the dislocation between the arguments (which you have left out) that I was drawing attention to. God guiding the weaverbird has nothing to do with the intention to produce/feed humans, and the fact that all surviving organisms must have something to eat is another non sequitur, since humans do not need to eat the weaverbird's nest.-Of course it relates. The lifestyle of the weavers has them raise chicks in the nest. If humans hunt the weavers for food, or eat the predators of weavers it is all part of the pattern of food for all.-> DAVID: The atheists are seeing epigenetic modifications and are struggling with accepting it. > > dhw: Accepting what? Do even your fellow theist researchers accept your theory that God implanted the first cells with instructions to enable bacteria to cope with every single problem for the next 3.8 billion years and onwards?-It is my impression that theistic research accepts my automatic molecular response theory, and they think God guided evolution or created per Tony. I don't anyone (theistic) thinks bacteria contain the code for every problem from the beginning. That is your extrapolation of my comments. As for atheistic struggles with epigenetics review the following article:-http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1894 (no room for excerpts) > > dhw: I have said explicitly that for the sake of argument I accept your premise that God gave it to them, because this discussion concerns how evolution works. Not did God do it or not, but did God guide organisms, or did he give them the means to guide themselves?-I think some of both. Again thinking of Epigenetics ( guppies and size changes).-> dhw: If the bird has the intelligence to design something so complex, where can you draw the line?... The nest is the start of the slippery slope towards God giving organisms the means (intelligence) to innovate autonomously, thus creating the higgledy-piggledy bush.-You are mixing up my approach. The nest is not the bush. The bush is strange body forms (whale, platypus) and the nest is a form of lifestyle. -> > DAVID: A drive to complexity is a force, not an intellectual choice. Evolution is driven. > > dhw: If your drive to complexity is “free-ranging”, as you suggest in your protozoa post, you now appear to agree that organisms organize their own complexities (innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders) except when God dabbles. -Not what I am proposing. Free-ranging refers to phenotype only, which in some cases will lead to strange lifestyles as a secondary effect. > > dhw: so let's pose the question directly: do you believe God “guided” every innovation (structural change), lifestyle (the monarch's migratory pattern) and natural wonder (the weaverbird's nest) - all are complex in their different ways - or do you believe he gave organisms the ability to organize their own “free-ranging” complexities independently of any plans and instructions, other than when he dabbled?-Based on a structuralism approach, God may have put in the evolutionary process a mechanism for increasingly complex structural changes, which would allow the development of a range of different lifestyles. I'm not a deist. God watches all of it. I'm inclined to think if the complexification mechanism is made thorough enough, it would result in His dabbling more at the lifestyle level, since the resulting organisms need guidance.
First multicellularity: algae
dhw: God guiding the weaverbird has nothing to do with the intention to produce/feed humans, and the fact that all surviving organisms must have something to eat is another non sequitur, since humans do not need to eat the weaverbird's nest. DAVID: Of course it relates. The lifestyle of the weavers has them raise chicks in the nest. If humans hunt the weavers for food, or eat the predators of weavers it is all part of the pattern of food for all.-Your point has always been that the nest itself was too complex to have been designed by the weavers. Most birds raise chicks in their nests, but God specifically had to design this particularly complex nest because…because…otherwise we would not have been able to eat weavers or their predators? And God had to specially train one particular type of wasp to lay its larvae on a spider's back, because otherwise humans would not have been able to eat…um…these particular wasps or their predators? Multiply these examples by the 99% of all species (extinct) which we couldn't have eaten anyway. Cohesive argument? -dhw: Do even your fellow theist researchers accept your theory that God implanted the first cells with instructions to enable bacteria to cope with every single problem for the next 3.8 billion years and onwards? DAVID: It is my impression that theistic research accepts my automatic molecular response theory, and they think God guided evolution or created per Tony. I don't anyone (theistic) thinks bacteria contain the code for every problem from the beginning. That is your extrapolation of my comments.-You stated that God gave the instructions for bacteria to solve their problems, but not currently (“no instructions in present time”) - and so unless he kept popping in new instructions every time there was a new problem right up until now (an equally far-fetched scenario), he must have put them in at the beginning. (Thank you for the epigenetics article, which I will tackle when I have more time.) http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1894 -dhw: If the bird has the intelligence to design something so complex, where can you draw the line?... The nest is the start of the slippery slope towards God giving organisms the means (intelligence) to innovate autonomously, thus creating the higgledy-piggledy bush. DAVID: You are mixing up my approach. The nest is not the bush. The bush is body forms (whale, platypus) and the nest is a form of lifestyle. -No mix-up. Your argument has always been that God directs evolutionary innovations (which include body forms), AND lifestyles AND natural wonders, because they are all too complex for organisms to design for themselves. I have always distinguished between them, but once you accept that organisms (cell communities) are intelligent enough to organize one (e.g. the nest), you open the door to the others, including innovation - new body forms etc. - which leads to the bush. dhw: If your drive to complexity is “free-ranging”, as you suggest in your protozoa post, you now appear to agree that organisms organize their own complexities (innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders) except when God dabbles. DAVID: Not what I am proposing. Free-ranging refers to phenotype only, which in some cases will lead to strange lifestyles as a secondary effect.-And that is the whole point of my hypothesis: that the process of innovation which has led to the different phenotypes - i.e. evolution itself - is the result of organisms having a “free-ranging” ability to design them autonomously, whereas you have always insisted that God guides them ALL.-DAVID: Based on a structuralism approach, God may have put in the evolutionary process a mechanism for increasingly complex structural changes, which would allow the development of a range of different lifestyles.-Theistically, that is clearly what happened, since these complex changes and lifestyles took place. But if God did not “guide” every single innovation (structural change), lifestyle and natural wonder, the mechanism he put in must have given organisms the ability to create them autonomously. DAVID: I'm not a deist. God watches all of it. I'm inclined to think if the complexification mechanism is made thorough enough, it would result in His dabbling more at the lifestyle level, since the resulting organisms need guidance.-Either the complexification mechanism (which is what I have called the mechanism for innovation) is preprogrammed/dabbled with, or organisms do their own innovating without specific “guidance”, and that entails what I call cellular intelligence. The intelligence to innovate would also be used to design lifestyles (e.g. migration) and natural wonders (e.g. complex nests), though God may sometimes intervene. Stark choice for you, using your own terms: does God “guide” every complexification (innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder) or do organisms do it autonomously apart from when he occasionally dabbles?
First multicellularity: algae
by David Turell , Monday, May 16, 2016, 18:20 (2899 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:Multiply these examples by the 99% of all species (extinct) which we couldn't have eaten anyway. Cohesive argument? -Cohesive when you finally accept that the balance of nature is of prime importance. Ask the Australians who are struggling with what their initial settlers gave them. > > dhw: You stated that God gave the instructions for bacteria to solve their problems, but not currently (“no instructions in present time”) - and so unless he kept popping in new instructions every time there was a new problem right up until now (an equally far-fetched scenario), he must have put them in at the beginning.-Yes. I think an ocean is an ocean from the beginning of life, and basically all the issues for bacteria have been handled from the beginning. Look at the extremophiles on land (later) and living at ocean bottom vents (earlier). Bacteria have the ability (God-given) to survive from the beginning of life.-> >dhw: Stark choice for you, using your own terms: does God “guide” every complexification (innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder) or do organisms do it autonomously apart from when he occasionally dabbles?-I've agreed that God might have implanted a phenotype complexifier mechanism which operated on its own but under his watchful eye. Remember, I've never known how much is implanted from the beginning and how much is dabble. There is no way of knowing at this stage of our knowledge.
First multicellularity: algae
dhw:Multiply these examples by the 99% of all species (extinct) which we couldn't have eaten anyway. Cohesive argument? DAVID: Cohesive when you finally accept that the balance of nature is of prime importance… -Prime importance to whom? You seem to regard whatever happened in the past as balanced. So 99% of species perished, but nature was balanced for the remaining 1%. Yippee. It's only out of balance when humans change it and it's bad for humans.-dhw: You stated that God gave the instructions for bacteria to solve their problems, but not currently (“no instructions in present time”) - and so unless he kept popping in new instructions every time there was a new problem right up until now (an equally far-fetched scenario), he must have put them in at the beginning. -DAVID: Yes. I think an ocean is an ocean from the beginning of life, and basically all the issues for bacteria have been handled from the beginning. Look at the extremophiles on land (later) and living at ocean bottom vents (earlier). Bacteria have the ability (God-given) to survive from the beginning of life.-Yes, they do, and that is my point. The world has changed a bit since the beginning of life, and bacteria have mastered every single change. So either God kept popping in new instructions (“Here you are guys: my manual on how to beat antibiotics”) or he issued them all 3.8 billion years ago. The only other possibility is that they work out the solutions for themselves. Ah!-dhw: Stark choice for you, using your own terms: does God “guide” every complexification (innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder) or do organisms do it autonomously apart from when he occasionally dabbles?-DAVID: I've agreed that God might have implanted a phenotype complexifier mechanism which operated on its own but under his watchful eye. -Hallelujah! Agreement at last. But it's not an autonomous inventive mechanism - it's an autonomous phenotype complexifier mechanism. I'll go for that. No problem with God watching (theistic version) - I've had him doing that all along, though perhaps for different reasons - as well as the possibility of the odd dabble. We have explained the higgledy-piggledy bush, and if we can just get somebody to find the mechanism, the Nobel Prize is ours! Just one more tiny niggleAVID: Remember, I've never known how much is implanted from the beginning and how much is dabble. There is no way of knowing at this stage of our knowledge.-What is “implanted”? A phenotype complexifier mechanism that operates on its own, operates on its own. That means it does not have instructions or guidelines “implanted”. Only the mechanism is “implanted”. Agreed? How much it does on its own and how much is dabbled we cannot know, but I'd just like to extend your ingenious new concept one stage further. I reckon that if organisms possess an autonomous phenotype complexifier mechanism intelligent enough to design new body forms and structures, it might even be intelligent enough to design a complicated nest. What do you think?
First multicellularity: algae
DAVID: As for atheistic struggles with epigenetics review the following article: http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1894 (no room for excerpts)-I have noticed your own use of epigenetics to explain small changes, and the fact that it is now used so widely and so vaguely to cover so many areas of heredity does make one suspicious. I can't find any allusions to a theistic or atheistic viewpoint, and of course I am in no position to discuss the scientific details (apparently castigated by several other experts in the field), but despite the scathing tone of this review, there is a very important concession, summed up by this paragraph towards the end: “Could the histone modifications that Allis studies and Mukherjee focuses on also carry information across cell divisions and generations? Sure. Our understanding of gene regulation is still fairly primitive, and there is plenty of room for the discovery of important inheritance mechanisms involving histone modification. We have to keep an open mind. But the point the critics of Mukherjee are really making is that given what is known today about mechanisms of gene regulation, it is bizarre bordering on irresponsible to focus on a mechanism of inheritance that only might be real.” (Author's bold)-The author goes on to say that the idea is “attractive” because it runs counter to determinism. Attractiveness is no reason for embracing an idea, but it is no reason for rejecting it either. Determinism is a major issue in any discussion on the human condition (are we nothing but our DNA?), and since our understanding of gene regulation is still “fairly primitive”, and the hypothesis “might be real”, keeping an open mind might be a very good idea. Perhaps I can add in passing that since our understanding of the origin of life, of consciousness, of how evolution works, of the nature of matter, and of the past, present and future of the universe is all “fairly primitive”, the same might be said of those too.
First multicellularity: algae
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 17, 2016, 22:00 (2898 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: As for atheistic struggles with epigenetics review the following article: > http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1894 (no room for excerpts) > > dhw: I have noticed your own use of epigenetics to explain small changes, and the fact that it is now used so widely and so vaguely to cover so many areas of heredity does make one suspicious. I can't find any allusions to a theistic or atheistic viewpoint, - Eisen is known to have atheistic views.
First multicellularity: new find disputed
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 17, 2016, 22:42 (2898 days ago) @ David Turell
Mats of cells have been found in China dated 1.5 billion years ago. Whether they are eukaryotes is strongly debated:-http://phys.org/news/2016-05-complex-life-billion-years-earlier.html-"Researchers said Tuesday they had uncovered fossils showing that complex life on Earth began more than 1.5 billion years ago, nearly a billion years earlier than previously thought.-"But the evidence, published in Nature Communications, immediately provoked debate, with some scientists hailing it as rock solid, and others saying they were wholly unconvinced.-***- "The fossils were uncovered in Hebei Province's Yanshan region, where Mao Zedong and his communist army hunkered down during World War II before coming to power.-"Zhu and colleagues found 167 measurable fossils, a third of them in one of four regular shapes—an indication of complexity.-"The largest measured 30 by eight centimetres (12 by three inches).-"Taken together, they are "compelling evidence for the early evolution of organisms large enough to be visible with the naked eye," said Zhu.-***-"Up to now, eukaryotes of comparable size have not shown up in the fossil record until about 600 million years ago, when a multitude of soft-bodied creatures inhabited the world's oceans. ( my comment: early Cambrian)-"Phil Donoghue, a professor of palaeobiology at the University of Bristol, described the discovery as a "big deal".-"'They are not the oldest eukaryotes, but they are certainly the oldest demonstrably multicellular eukaryotes," he told AFP. -"Their very existence 1.56 billion years ago would mean that "oxygen levels were sufficiently high to allow for such large organisms to subsist."-"But other experts were more sceptical.-"'There is nothing here to suggest that the specimens are eukaryotic, as opposed to bacterial," said Jonathan Antcliffe, a senior researcher in the University of Oxford's department of zoology.-"Bacteria are, by definition, unicellular, and do not have distinct nuclei containing genetic material.-"Antcliffe suggested the fossils more likely corresponded to colonies of bacterial cells, rather than a single complex organism.-"Truly multicellular creatures display three-dimensional form in which only some cells are in direct contact with the environment.-"This is "critically important for function because it introduces transport problems for oxygen, nutrients, and signalling molecules" needed by the internal cells, Andrew Knoll of Harvard University explained in an article reviewing scientific literature on the origins of complex life.-"Another researcher, Abderrazak El Albani of the University of Poitiers in France, said there simply wasn't enough detail in the study to back up the claim.-"'The morphological measures, on their own, are absolutely insufficient to tell us if these organisms were multicellular, eukaryotes or complex," he told AFP when asked to comment.-Comment: Early unicellular life clumped together as stromatolites 3.5 billion years ago, so clumping may not be much of an issue. But real complexity in the Cambrian is of much more importance
First multicellularity: fruiting bodies
by David Turell , Tuesday, August 16, 2016, 15:27 (2807 days ago) @ David Turell
Some unicellular organisms under stress will form fruiting bodies, an early form of multicellularity, and if the stress is severe enough some of the cells become spores to insure survival. Here is a review of an early description. Be sure to look at the pictures:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/46673/title/First-Micrographs-of-Myxobacteria-Forming-Fruiting-Bodies/&utm_campaign=NEWSLETTER_TS_The-Scientist-Daily_2016&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=32973117&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_BiwWbJAfXX-7yXSdnTA8ACb7HaCSv1fHd73yf8ZYwrvcb85Qb2BFBku2f0d2t25b2BHqNMiQB2EOHxNte0y_R-ypS5A&_hsmi=32973117-"Starting in the late 1970s, Stanford University's Dale Kaiser worked for years to visualize a certain bacterial phenomenon. Microbiologists had known that, when starved, some soil-dwelling myxobacteria aggregate, forming so-called fruiting bodies full of hardy spores. Yet capturing this behavior in action, Kaiser found, was a challenge.-***-“You can take a long time to describe fruiting body formation and how amazing it is, but those pictures really jump out at you, telling the whole story,” says Rutgers University's Ann Stock, who penned a perspective on the 1982 paper this February (J Bacteriol, 198:602, 2016).-"Other groups have since applied the submerged culture method described by Kaiser and Kuner to further study fruiting body formation in M. xanthus and related species. “It looked like we had an in vitro method of forming fruiting bodies,” says Kaiser.-"The team's images are still reprinted today. Stock says, “These images spoke to me from my many years of listening to Myxococcus xanthus talks,” starting when she was a graduate student. “It's a pretty interesting organism with its multicellular, social lifestyle. It stands out among the bacteria.'”-Comment: Some amoeba also can do this. It is obvious that stress in the environment causes developments of this kind. That is the 'why' part. It is the 'how' part that puzzles me. If the stress is severe and they don't get to the spore phase quickly they don't survive. This is a protective process that had to be developed over time. Non-survivors don't develop anything. Did it appear magically all at once?
First multicellularity: fruiting bodies
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 07, 2018, 14:10 (2239 days ago) @ David Turell
An example from amoeba:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/social-amoebae-reach-for-the-sky
"Dictyostelium discoideum amoebae are normally independent creatures, but hunger makes them social. Starvation can trigger tens of thousands of the amoebae to aggregate into a mobile slug that eventually differentiates into a fruiting body (seen in the picture above) that holds living spores aloft on stalks made of dead amoebae.
"About 20 percent of the amoebae sacrifice themselves to form the stalk that lifts living spores up and helps them disperse, carried off by insects.
"This clear separation into altruists (dead stalk cells) and beneficiaries (living spore cells) is reminiscent of an ant colony where the sterile workers assist their queen in reproducing."
Comment: Single celled organisms had to start cooperating if multicellularity was destined to appear. God guided them.
First multicellularity: calcified amoeba forms
by David Turell , Thursday, February 28, 2019, 19:35 (1881 days ago) @ David Turell
The story covers research on the development of Thecamoebae, a shelled form of multicellular amoeba like the foraminifera:
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-amoebae-diversified-million-years-earlier.html
"The study, which was supported by São Paulo Research Foundation—FAPESP, revealed eight new ancestral lineages of Thecamoebae, the largest group in Amoebozoa. Thecamoebians are known as testates because of their hard outer carapace or shell.
"Interpretations of the evolution of Earth's atmosphere and climate change are also affected by the discovery that amoebae are more diverse than previously thought.
***
"According to Lahr, the study presents a different view of how microorganisms evolved on the planet. The late Precambrian was considered a period of low biotic diversity, with only a few species of bacteria and some protists.
"'It was in this period 800 million years ago that the oceans became oxygenated. For a long time, oxygenation was assumed to have led to diversification of the eukaryotes, unicellular and multicellular organisms in which the cell's nucleus is isolated by a membrane, culminating in the diversification of macroorganisms millions of years later in the Cambrian," Lahr said.
"The study, he added, focuses on a detail of this question. "We show that diversification apparently already existed in the Precambrian and that it probably occurred at the same time as ocean oxygenation. What's more, geophysicists are discovering that this process was slow and may have lasted 100 million years or so," he said.
"However, scientists do not know what pressure triggered this oxygenation. "Regardless of the cause, oxygenation eventually led to more niches, the eukaryotes diversified, and there was more competition for niches. One way to resolve the competition was for some lineages to become larger and hence multicellular," Lahr said. (my bold)
***
"In addition to the discovery of greater diversity in the Precambrian, the study also innovates by reconstructing the morphology of the ancestors of thecamoebians to establish that the vase-shaped microfossils (VSMs) found in various parts of the world already existed in the Precambrian and even in the major ice ages that occurred during this era.
"VSMs are presumed to be fossils of testate amoebae. They are unicellular and eukaryotic and have an external skeleton. Significant diversity of VSMs has been documented for the Neoproterozoic Era, which spanned between 1 billion and 541 million years ago, and was the terminal era of the Precambrian.
"In addition to the lack of DNA-containing fossils, the researchers faced another obstacle in reconstructing the phylogenetic tree: thecamoebians cannot be cultured in the laboratory, and genetic sequencing by conventional means is therefore ruled out.
"The solution to this problem was to use the single-cell transcriptome technique to analyze phylogenetics (instead of gene expression, its normal application). "We sequenced whole transcriptomes of arcellinid amoebae using live samples," Lahr explained. "This yielded several thousand genes and some 100,000 amino acid sites, or 100,000 datapoints giving us the phylogenetic tree, which had never been seen before."
"The researchers used transcriptome-based methodology to
capture all messenger RNAs from each individual cell and convert them into a sequenceable complementary DNA library."
Comment: No question, lowly amoeba led the way to multicellularity, but as my bold above shows, we recognize that oxygen appeared in larger quantities, but science doesn't know what drove the changes. But the Cambrian Explosion gap is not any smaller.
First multicellularity: new findings and theories
by David Turell , Wednesday, July 17, 2019, 19:04 (1742 days ago) @ David Turell
A review of current thought, starting with the recognition that single-celled forms were highly complex before multicellularity appeared:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/scientists-debate-the-origin-of-cell-types-in-the-first-...
"The recent work paints a picture of ancestral single-celled organisms that were already amazingly complex. They possessed the plasticity and versatility to slip back and forth between several states — to differentiate as today’s stem cells do and then dedifferentiate back to a less specialized form. The research implies that mechanisms of cellular differentiation predated the gradual rise of multicellular animals. (my bold)
***
"In the 2000s, more than a century after Haeckel proposed his theory, genomic evidence confirmed that choanoflagellates were animals’ closest living relatives. “Out of the many single-cell eukaryotes out there, 150 years ago choanoflagellates had been proposed as a close relative of animals,” said Pawel Burkhardt, a molecular biologist at the Sars International Center for Marine Molecular Biology in Norway. “Then the first genome was sequenced, and bam! It actually was really true.”
***
"But uncertainty about that clear and elegant story has been growing over the past decade. The idea that animals arose from a colony of choanoflagellate-like cells implies that cell differentiation evolved after multicellularity did. But “the data is demonstrating that it’s not like that,” said Iñaki Ruiz-Trillo, an evolutionary biologist at the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona.
"The first complication came in 2008, when a group of scientists, in an effort to more precisely map out the evolutionary relationships among animals on the tree of life, identified comb jellies rather than sponges as the earliest animals. The finding generated controversy. “It’s still very much a heated question,” Gold said, “but I think it forced the community to reappraise the classic narrative.”
***
"Back in 1949, the Russian biologist Alexey Zakhvatkin had proposed that multicellular animals evolved when temporally differentiating cells formed colonies and began to commit to particular stages in their life cycles, allowing a few cell types to exist at once. Ruiz-Trillo and his colleagues provided further evidence for this so-called temporal-to-spatial transition. In a series of studies, they showed that certain families of regulatory proteins supposedly unique to animals, including those involved in cell differentiation, were actually already present in their far more ancient unicellular relatives.
***
"They expected to establish that sponge choanocytes had gene expression profiles most like those of choanoflagellates. Instead, they found that another type of sponge cell did.
That cell type, called an archaeocyte, acts like a stem cell for the sponge: It can differentiate into any other cell type the animal might need. Some of the gene expression patterns in archaeocytes are significantly similar to those of the protists during particular life cycle stages, according to Bernard Degnan. “They’re expressing genes that suggest that they have an ancestral regulatory system,” he said. “All animals are just variations on that theme that was created a long time ago.”
***
"According to some experts, we can think of the single-celled organisms that came before animals as stem cells of sorts: They could go on dividing forever, and they could perform a variety of functions, including reproduction. Other early animals, such as jellyfish, show a great deal of that seemingly ancestral plasticity as well.
***
" In a preprint they posted on biorxiv.org in May, Burkhardt and his colleagues found that the cells in a choanoflagellate colony are not all identical: They differ in their morphology and in the ratio of their organelles. These observations, he said, suggest that spatial cell differentiation was already happening in the choanoflagellate lineage, and perhaps even earlier — a possibility that blends the new ideas (that the capacity for differentiation is ancient and the transition to animal multicellularity was gradual) with the old (that this could happen with choanoflagellate-like cells)."
Comment: Note my bold in the first quote which tells us that single-celled early forms were highly complex. This implies to me that the very first life cells were highly complex, and therefore had to be designed. The basis for eventual multicellularity was designed into those first cells
First multicellularity: new findings and theories
DAVID: A review of current thought, starting with the recognition that single-celled forms were highly complex before multicellularity appeared:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/scientists-debate-the-origin-of-cell-types-in-the-first-...
QUOTE: "The recent work paints a picture of ancestral single-celled organisms that were already amazingly complex. They possessed the plasticity and versatility to slip back and forth between several states — to differentiate as today’s stem cells do and then dedifferentiate back to a less specialized form. The research implies that mechanisms of cellular differentiation predated the gradual rise of multicellular animals. (David’s bold)
These observations, he said, suggest that spatial cell differentiation was already happening in the choanoflagellate lineage, and perhaps even earlier — a possibility that blends the new ideas (that the capacity for differentiation is ancient and the transition to animal multicellularity was gradual) with the old (that this could happen with choanoflagellate-like cells)."
DAVID: Note my bold in the first quote which tells us that single-celled early forms were highly complex. This implies to me that the very first life cells were highly complex, and therefore had to be designed. The basis for eventual multicellularity was designed into those first cells
Of course they were highly complex, and this whole article fits in perfectly with the argument that no matter what “lineage” of cells we’re talking about, single cells already had the ability to change their nature, and so it is perfectly logical to suggest that once cells began to form communities, they were able to create the innovations which led to the evolution of all subsequent life forms. Hence common descent. I agree with you that such a mechanism seems far too complex to have arisen by chance. That is one of the strongest arguments for a conscious designer, and is a major reason for my own unwillingness to embrace atheism. You already know my reasons for not embracing theism.
Under “Cambrian explosion”:
DAVID: Nothing new. They find some new forms and have no explanation as to why the Cambrian is so different from what preceded except more oxygen appeared. No help for poor Darwin who recognized the danger of the Cambrian gap to his theory
Ah, but “poor Darwin” never knew that there was an alternative to his theory of random mutations and gradual refinements – a theory that would explain the Cambrian and every other mystery arising from Chapter Two in the history of life, and would fit in perfectly well with the theory of common descent which even you, David, have accepted. Three cheers for the champions of “cellular intelligence” (leading to Shapiro’s natural genetic engineering), and “poor Darwin” could have ended his masterpiece with praise for the Creator who designed the mechanism that led to the “most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals”. Don’t you just love it?
First multicellularity: new findings and theories
by David Turell , Thursday, July 18, 2019, 15:20 (1741 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: A review of current thought, starting with the recognition that single-celled forms were highly complex before multicellularity appeared:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/scientists-debate-the-origin-of-cell-types-in-the-first-...QUOTE: "The recent work paints a picture of ancestral single-celled organisms that were already amazingly complex. They possessed the plasticity and versatility to slip back and forth between several states — to differentiate as today’s stem cells do and then dedifferentiate back to a less specialized form. The research implies that mechanisms of cellular differentiation predated the gradual rise of multicellular animals. (David’s bold)
These observations, he said, suggest that spatial cell differentiation was already happening in the choanoflagellate lineage, and perhaps even earlier — a possibility that blends the new ideas (that the capacity for differentiation is ancient and the transition to animal multicellularity was gradual) with the old (that this could happen with choanoflagellate-like cells)."
DAVID: Note my bold in the first quote which tells us that single-celled early forms were highly complex. This implies to me that the very first life cells were highly complex, and therefore had to be designed. The basis for eventual multicellularity was designed into those first cells
dhw:Of course they were highly complex, and this whole article fits in perfectly with the argument that no matter what “lineage” of cells we’re talking about, single cells already had the ability to change their nature, and so it is perfectly logical to suggest that once cells began to form communities, they were able to create the innovations which led to the evolution of all subsequent life forms. Hence common descent. I agree with you that such a mechanism seems far too complex to have arisen by chance. That is one of the strongest arguments for a conscious designer, and is a major reason for my own unwillingness to embrace atheism. You already know my reasons for not embracing theism.
Under “Cambrian explosion”:
DAVID: Nothing new. They find some new forms and have no explanation as to why the Cambrian is so different from what preceded except more oxygen appeared. No help for poor Darwin who recognized the danger of the Cambrian gap to his theorydhw: Ah, but “poor Darwin” never knew that there was an alternative to his theory of random mutations and gradual refinements – a theory that would explain the Cambrian and every other mystery arising from Chapter Two in the history of life, and would fit in perfectly well with the theory of common descent which even you, David, have accepted. Three cheers for the champions of “cellular intelligence” (leading to Shapiro’s natural genetic engineering), and “poor Darwin” could have ended his masterpiece with praise for the Creator who designed the mechanism that led to the “most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals”. Don’t you just love it?
Yes, God-designed genetic intelligent information helps cells beautifully.
First multicellularity: claimed in bacterial mats
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 13, 2020, 18:25 (1288 days ago) @ David Turell
A new study extrapolates a study of B. subtilis mat into ontology follows phylogeny:
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-evolution-social-distancing-life.html
"In this paper, the researchers took evolutionary tools to study the growth of biofilms, the most common bacterial lifestyle characterized by the tight clustering of bacterial cells on surfaces. "Surprisingly, we found that the development of bacterial biofilms is comparable to animal embryogenesis. This means that bacteria are true multicellular organisms just like we are. Considering that the oldest known fossils are bacterial biofilms, it is quite likely that the first life was also multicellular, and not a single-celled creature as considered so far," says Prof Tomislav
***
"microbiologists have recognized that bacterial cells live a rich social life in biofilms. However, it has remained unclear if these diverse interactions comprise a multicellular organism. "Evolutionary methods to study collective behavior of cells in animal development were at hand, but no one tried to transfer this technology from animal embryos to bacterial biofilms. Perhaps people were uncomfortable to challenge the special status of animal multicellularity, the idea that is culturally hardwired," says Domazet-Lošo.
"Previous work of Domazet-Lošo and his team was focused on evolutionary genomics and animal development. They were able to show that evolution is mirrored in embryos, thus confirming the old conjecture that ontogeny parallels phylogeny in animals.
***
"'Surprisingly, we found that evolutionary younger genes were increasingly expressed toward the later timepoints of biofilm growth. In other words, we found that Bacillus ontogeny strongly recapitulates phylogeny. So far, these patterns have been considered the signature of embryo development in complex eukaryotes," says Domazet-Lošo. The research team then followed the trail and looked for other features of embryogenesis in biofilms like stage-organized architecture, increased use of multicellularity genes and molecular links to morphology changes, and to their excitement, they found these properties, as well."
Comment: There is no question here is an imitation of multicellular organisms. Perhaps a step to multicellularity. We know amoeba can form colonies that create stalks and spores. but I think they are straining too much to see this as true multicellularity.
First multicellularity: claimed in a new bacteria
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 12, 2022, 17:14 (559 days ago) @ David Turell
This new bacterium has multicellular characteristics:
https://phys.org/news/2022-10-multicellular-bacteria-species.html
"The bacterium, HS-3, was isolated from a limestone cave wall that is intermittently submerged by an underground river. HS-3 has two distinct life phases; on a solid surface it self-organizes into a layer-structured colony with the properties of a liquid crystal. After maturation, the HS-3 colony forms a semi-closed sphere housing clusters of "daughter" coccobacillus (short rod-shaped) cells, which are released upon contact with water.
"'The emergence of multicellularity is one of the greatest mysteries of life on Earth," states corresponding author Kouhei Mizuno, a professor at the National Institute of Technology (KOSEN), Tokyo, Japan. "The point is that we already know the superior function and adaptability of multicellularity, but we know almost nothing about its origins. Established function and adaptability are not necessarily their own formative driving force. A curiosity of multicellularity is the conflict between the 'benefits of individuals' versus the 'benefit of the group' that must have existed in the early stage of the evolutionary transition. We don't have a good existing model to study multicellularity except theoretical models."
***
"The team used microscopies to analyze the colony growth. The cells started to reproduce simply as coccobacilli, but the occurrence of cell elongation caused the colony to form a single-layered structure, orientated like a liquid crystal. Bulges form particularly at the colony edge, relieving internal pressure and granting HS-3 the unique ability to maintain this two-dimensional liquid arrangement for a prolonged period, which may be a prerequisite for HS-3 to establish multicellular behavior.
"Then, the colony then expanded to form additional layers. The internal filamentous cells buckled, generating vortex-structured domains. These domains and the liquid crystal-like arrangement explain the transparency observed in HS-3 colonies on agar. After two days, rapid cell reproduction occurred internally and the colony began to swell three-dimensionally, forming a semi-closed sphere housing the coccobacillus cells. After the fifth day, the internal cells were crowded-out of the colony, triggering a chain reaction of this event in adjacent colonies and thereby indicating some multicellular control.
"As the cave wall sampling site of HS-3 was regularly subject to flowing water in the cave, the team submerged the mature semi-sphere colonies in water. The internal coccobacilli were released into the water, leaving behind the filamentous cell architecture. By plating these daughter cells on fresh agar, they discovered that the cells were able to reproduce the original filamentous structure, showing that the two distinct phases of HS-3's life cycle are reversible, and may have arisen due to the changing conditions inside the cave.
***
"'The first stage of HS-3's life cycle suggests that the liquid crystal-like organization is involved in the emergence of multicellularity, which has not been reported before. The existence of the second life stage implicates the involvement of dynamic water environment in the emergence of HS-3's multicellularity," says co-corresponding author Kazuya Morikawa, a professor in the Division of Biomedical Science, University of Tsukuba, Japan."
Comment: this is similar to other findings as in amoeba colonies. Still not an answer to the origin of multicellularity.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Monday, October 17, 2016, 15:22 (2745 days ago) @ David Turell
Recent work on amoeba which create stalks and bodies with cells functioning differently is discussed:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/47255/title/Single-Celled-Life-Pr...
Researchers studying an amoeba species have determined that some of its proteins bear a striking similarity to proteins in multicellular animals, suggesting that the leap from unicellularity to multicellularity may have been easier than previously suspected. The protist, Capsaspora owczarzaki, undergoes life-cycle transitions with the aid of phosphosignaling and proteome regulation in much the same way that multicellular animals direct the differentiation and role of cells performing different functions within an individual organism,
***
“Animals are regarded as this very special branch, as in, there had to be so many innovations to be an animal,” David Booth, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who wasn’t involved in the study, told Science News. The new work shows “a lot of the machinery was there millions of years before animals evolved.”
Researchers in Spain combed the proteome of C.owczarzaki as the amoeba transitioned from free living to colonial stages of its life cycle. They found that the mix of proteins changed in these different life stages, especially with regard to phosphorylation state. The researchers also discovered key differences in transcription factors and tyrosine kinases, suggesting that the amoeba’s proteins were being modified just as proteins are in distinct cell types within the body of a multicelluar organism. This, study coauthor Iñaki Ruiz-Trillo of the Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona told Science News, means that the earliest multicellular animals were likely “recycling mechanisms that were already present before.”
Such molecular changes had not previously been documented, on the proteome level, in single-celled species. If the ancestor of early animals also harbored these molecular characteristics, the jump from unicellularity to multicellularity may have been more than a tweak to existing machinery rather than a huge structural and functional leap, Ruiz-Trillo and his team reasoned.
Comment: No question there had to be some sort of transitional preparation. Multicellular life comes with baggage. It dies Species die out. Why bother?
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
DAVID: Recent work on amoeba which create stalks and bodies with cells functioning differently is discussed:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/47255/title/Single-Celled-Life-Pr...
QUOTES: Researchers studying an amoeba species have determined that some of its proteins bear a striking similarity to proteins in multicellular animals, suggesting that the leap from unicellularity to multicellularity may have been easier than previously suspected.
The new work shows “a lot of the machinery was there millions of years before animals evolved.”
David’s comment: No question there had to be some sort of transitional preparation. Multicellular life comes with baggage. It dies Species die out. Why bother?
If this is all true, it’s a huge step in our understanding of how evolution happened. The transition from single cell to multi-cellular sounds considerably simpler if the mechanism was already there from the start. Why bother? How about an in-built (perhaps God-given) drive for survival and/or improvement?
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Thursday, October 20, 2016, 15:15 (2742 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTES: Researchers studying an amoeba species have determined that some of its proteins bear a striking similarity to proteins in multicellular animals, suggesting that the leap from unicellularity to multicellularity may have been easier than previously suspected.David: The new work shows “a lot of the machinery was there millions of years before animals evolved.”
David’s comment: No question there had to be some sort of transitional preparation. Multicellular life comes with baggage. It dies Species die out. Why bother?
dhw: If this is all true, it’s a huge step in our understanding of how evolution happened. The transition from single cell to multi-cellular sounds considerably simpler if the mechanism was already there from the start. Why bother? How about an in-built (perhaps God-given) drive for survival and/or improvement?
I call it a drive for complexity, since bacteria show it is not necessary , which your approach implies.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
dhw: If this is all true, it’s a huge step in our understanding of how evolution happened. The transition from single cell to multi-cellular sounds considerably simpler if the mechanism was already there from the start. Why bother? How about an in-built (perhaps God-given) drive for survival and/or improvement?
DAVID: I call it a drive for complexity, since bacteria show it is not necessary, which your approach implies.
Survival is necessary, improvement is desirable and understandable if the possibility is there. Complexity for the sake of complexity seems to me to be pointless.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Sunday, October 23, 2016, 20:15 (2739 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: If this is all true, it’s a huge step in our understanding of how evolution happened. The transition from single cell to multi-cellular sounds considerably simpler if the mechanism was already there from the start. Why bother? How about an in-built (perhaps God-given) drive for survival and/or improvement?
DAVID: I call it a drive for complexity, since bacteria show it is not necessary, which your approach implies.
dhw: Survival is necessary, improvement is desirable and understandable if the possibility is there. Complexity for the sake of complexity seems to me to be pointless.
Multicellularity is very complex and not an improvement on the easy livability present in bacteria. Again, why bother?
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
dhw: If this is all true, it’s a huge step in our understanding of how evolution happened. The transition from single cell to multi-cellular sounds considerably simpler if the mechanism was already there from the start. Why bother? How about an in-built (perhaps God-given) drive for survival and/or improvement?
DAVID: I call it a drive for complexity, since bacteria show it is not necessary, which your approach implies.
dhw: Survival is necessary, improvement is desirable and understandable if the possibility is there. Complexity for the sake of complexity seems to me to be pointless.
DAVID: Multicellularity is very complex and not an improvement on the easy livability present in bacteria. Again, why bother?
Endosymbiosis is a process that is beneficial to both organisms. Benefit = improvement in my book. As environments changed, new challenges and opportunities arose. The challenges required adaptation, but the opportunities enabled improvement. I’m surprised that you think “livability” is the only criterion for improvement.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Monday, October 24, 2016, 15:48 (2738 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Multicellularity is very complex and not an improvement on the easy livability present in bacteria. Again, why bother?dhw: Endosymbiosis is a process that is beneficial to both organisms. Benefit = improvement in my book. As environments changed, new challenges and opportunities arose. The challenges required adaptation, but the opportunities enabled improvement. I’m surprised that you think “livability” is the only criterion for improvement.
'Opportunities enabled improvement' is a strange phrase. 'Challanges required adaptation' is correct. It demands improvement or extinction. Bacteria weren't challenged. They solve all problems and survive, need no improvement. Why multicellularity? Can't get to us any other way. Today's bush of life is exceedingly complex. Advancing evolution requires complexity beyond bacteria.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
DAVID: Multicellularity is very complex and not an improvement on the easy livability present in bacteria. Again, why bother?
dhw: Endosymbiosis is a process that is beneficial to both organisms. Benefit = improvement in my book. As environments changed, new challenges and opportunities arose. The challenges required adaptation, but the opportunities enabled improvement. I’m surprised that you think “livability” is the only criterion for improvement.
DAVID: 'Opportunities enabled improvement' is a strange phrase.
It would not have been possible for innovations to take place if the environment had been unfavourable for them. An increase in oxygen may have created the opportunity for new organisms to come into being to exploit the environment in new ways. That is why I link innovation and improvement to opportunities offered by the environment.
DAVID: 'Challanges required adaptation' is correct. It demands improvement or extinction. Bacteria weren't challenged. They solve all problems and survive, need no improvement. Why multicellularity? Can't get to us any other way. Today's bush of life is exceedingly complex. Advancing evolution requires complexity beyond bacteria.
I can only comment disjointedly on this disjointed paragraph. What demands improvement or extinction? Is this a misprint? Why do you say bacteria weren’t challenged? They have met every challenge by adapting, but yes indeed they are still bacteria. Why multicellularity? You can’t get to the duckbilled platypus and thousands of other species extant and extinct any other way. So why just “us”? Multicellularity by definition is more complex than unicellularity, and of course evolution would not have advanced without it.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 25, 2016, 15:20 (2737 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: It would not have been possible for innovations to take place if the environment had been unfavourable for them. An increase in oxygen may have created the opportunity for new organisms to come into being to exploit the environment in new ways. That is why I link innovation and improvement to opportunities offered by the environment.
Unfavorable stress, not favorable environment, drives the need for adaptation. More oxygen does not require new evolved forms. More oxygen will not act as a suction pulling evolution forward.
DAVID: 'Challanges required adaptation' is correct. It demands improvement or extinction. Bacteria weren't challenged. They solve all problems and survive, need no improvement. Why multicellularity? Can't get to us any other way. Today's bush of life is exceedingly complex. Advancing evolution requires complexity beyond bacteria.
dhw: I can only comment disjointedly on this disjointed paragraph. What demands improvement or extinction? Is this a misprint? Why do you say bacteria weren’t challenged? They have met every challenge by adapting, but yes indeed they are still bacteria. Why multicellularity? You can’t get to the duckbilled platypus and thousands of other species extant and extinct any other way. So why just “us”? Multicellularity by definition is more complex than unicellularity, and of course evolution would not have advanced without it.
My disjointed point: Why did evolution advance if bacteria were up to all the challenges? Challenges demand improvement or extinction. Multicellularity is highly complex and raises all sorts of complex biochemical issues to be solved. Why not sticking with simplicity? Because only multicellularity leads to humans, which is the goal. Clear?
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
dhw: It would not have been possible for innovations to take place if the environment had been unfavourable for them. An increase in oxygen may have created the opportunity for new organisms to come into being to exploit the environment in new ways. That is why I link innovation and improvement to opportunities offered by the environment.
DAVID: Unfavorable stress, not favorable environment, drives the need for adaptation. More oxygen does not require new evolved forms. More oxygen will not act as a suction pulling evolution forward.
But I am not talking about adaptation! Adaptation can be witnessed even today. Please re-read what I wrote. The problem we have been dealing with year after year is INNOVATION, and that is why I suggest that the two driving forces behind evolution are survival and improvement: survival requires adaptation to unfavourable stress, improvement entails exploiting new opportunities, e.g. a change in the atmosphere such as increased oxygen. This is precisely the argument put forward in the important article you have just posted on the role of the Earth’s magnetic field – changes in the environment provided the opportunity for new forms of life (the Cambrian Explosion).
DAVID: 'Challanges required adaptation' is correct. It demands improvement or extinction. Bacteria weren't challenged. They solve all problems and survive, need no improvement. Why multicellularity? Can't get to us any other way. Today's bush of life is exceedingly complex. Advancing evolution requires complexity beyond bacteria.
dhw: I can only comment disjointedly on this disjointed paragraph. What demands improvement or extinction? Is this a misprint? Why do you say bacteria weren’t challenged? They have met every challenge by adapting, but yes indeed they are still bacteria. Why multicellularity? You can’t get to the duckbilled platypus and thousands of other species extant and extinct any other way. So why just “us”? Multicellularity by definition is more complex than unicellularity, and of course evolution would not have advanced without it.
DAVID: My disjointed point: Why did evolution advance if bacteria were up to all the challenges? Challenges demand improvement or extinction.
I’m surprised you use “improvement” here, since challenges demand adaptation or extinction. Perhaps you are trying to devalue my own use of the term, which I have explained above in the context of why evolution advanced beyond bacteria, namely through innovation.
DAVID: Multicellularity is highly complex and raises all sorts of complex biochemical issues to be solved. Why not sticking with simplicity? Because only multicellularity leads to humans, which is the goal. Clear?
Stating that humans are the goal is certainly clear, but that doesn’t make it true. Only multicellularity – as I said above – leads to the duckbilled platypus and every other multicellular organism extinct and extant. Even you find it hard to understand your own interpretation of God’s logic (all planned to balance nature to keep life going to provide food till humans came), but for some reason the alternative – that your God might have given organisms free rein (apart from the occasional dabble) – is anathema to you.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 26, 2016, 15:07 (2736 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Unfavorable stress, not favorable environment, drives the need for adaptation. More oxygen does not require new evolved forms. More oxygen will not act as a suction pulling evolution forward.
dhw: But I am not talking about adaptation! Adaptation can be witnessed even today. Please re-read what I wrote. The problem we have been dealing with year after year is INNOVATION, and that is why I suggest that the two driving forces behind evolution are survival and improvement: survival requires adaptation to unfavourable stress, improvement entails exploiting new opportunities, e.g. a change in the atmosphere such as increased oxygen. This is precisely the argument put forward in the important article you have just posted on the role of the Earth’s magnetic field – changes in the environment provided the opportunity for new forms of life (the Cambrian Explosion).
Back to definitions. Any adaptation, is by definition, an improvement. The improvements you are touting imply they are at the level of speciation. Fine. Favorable changes in environment offer the opportunity for new form to develop. However, opportunity does not imply 'must happen'. It only implies 'now it can happen'. The gaps must necessitate planning for the complexity of a new form, the creation of new proteins, and often new enzymes which are of giant size in the population of protein molecules. My conclusion. Only a drive to complexity (complex planning) is part of evolution, either performed directly by God or by an inventive mechanism implanted in organisms by God with guidelines that lead to humans. Gaps, abhorred by Darwin, who said that unless they would disappear, his theory would fall part.
DAVID: Multicellularity is highly complex and raises all sorts of complex biochemical issues to be solved. Why not sticking with simplicity? Because only multicellularity leads to humans, which is the goal. Clear?dhw: Stating that humans are the goal is certainly clear, but that doesn’t make it true.
Agreed. But we did arrive with all the unnecessary baggage for survival we were given. Apes survive without calculus or true consciousness, or wonder about why we apes are here.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
DAVID: Unfavorable stress, not favorable environment, drives the need for adaptation. More oxygen does not require new evolved forms. More oxygen will not act as a suction pulling evolution forward.
You asked what I meant by “opportunities enabled improvement”, and I explained that environmental change may provide the opportunity for innovation. You commented that stress drove the need for adaptation, and I repeated that I was talking about innovation, not adaptation. Your reply takes us all round the mulberry bush to nowhere. My responses are in BOLD CAPITALS.
DAVID: Back to definitions. Any adaptation, is by definition, an improvement. The improvements you are touting imply they are at the level of speciation. YES. Fine. Favorable changes in environment offer the opportunity for new form to develop. YES. However, opportunity does not imply 'must happen'. I NEVER SAID IT DID. It only implies 'now it can happen'. YES. AND IT DID HAPPEN. The gaps must necessitate planning for the complexity of a new form, the creation of new proteins, and often new enzymes which are of giant size in the population of protein molecules. YES. My conclusion. Only a drive to complexity (complex planning) is part of evolution, either performed directly by God or by an inventive mechanism implanted in organisms by God with guidelines that lead to humans. I KNOW THAT IS YOUR HYPOTHESIS. AND YOU KNOW THAT MINE IS A DRIVE TO IMPROVEMENT IMPLEMENTED BY AN AUTONOMOUS, POSSIBLY GOD-GIVEN, INVENTIVE MECHANISM. Gaps, abhorred by Darwin, who said that unless they would disappear, his theory would fall part. AND YOU AND I HAVE AGREED, AS DID SOME OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES, THAT HE WAS WRONG. FORTUNATELY THIS DOES NOT MAKE HIS THEORY FALL APART. WHAT HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH THE HYPOTHESIS THAT CHANGES IN THE ENVIRONMENT OFFER THE OPPORTUNITY FOR INNOVATION?
DAVID: Multicellularity is highly complex and raises all sorts of complex biochemical issues to be solved. Why not sticking with simplicity? Because only multicellularity leads to humans, which is the goal. Clear?
dhw: Stating that humans are the goal is certainly clear, but that doesn’t make it true.
DAVID: Agreed. But we did arrive with all the unnecessary baggage for survival we were given. Apes survive without calculus or true consciousness, or wonder about why we apes are here.
I don’t think anyone would disagree that our enhanced consciousness has given us abilities that are not necessary for survival. But as we keep repeating ad nauseam, if evolution was only driven by what was necessary for survival, it would not have gone beyond bacteria! Hence improvement through multicellularity, and the unanswerable question for you: if God’s goal was humans, why did he have to teach the weaverbird how to build its nest? I doubt if I am the only person who fails to follow the logic of the claim that the nest was essential to the balance of nature so that there would be enough food to enable life to continue until humans arrived. Hence my (theistic) alternative: God gave the weaverbird the intelligence to build its own nest. Multiply the weaverbird example by as many million as you like.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Thursday, October 27, 2016, 19:18 (2735 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, October 27, 2016, 19:30
dhw: AND YOU KNOW THAT MINE IS A DRIVE TO IMPROVEMENT IMPLEMENTED BY AN AUTONOMOUS, POSSIBLY GOD-GIVEN, INVENTIVE MECHANISM.[/b] Gaps, abhorred by Darwin, who said that unless they would disappear, his theory would fall part. AND YOU AND I HAVE AGREED, AS DID SOME OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES, THAT HE WAS WRONG. FORTUNATELY THIS DOES NOT MAKE HIS THEORY FALL APART. WHAT HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH THE HYPOTHESIS THAT CHANGES IN THE ENVIRONMENT OFFER THE OPPORTUNITY FOR INNOVATION?
What it has to do is that innovation is speciation, or great gaps is phenotype. Darwin has never explained the gaps, thus his theory falls apart, other than he recognized that evolution occurred, but not how.
DAVID: Multicellularity is highly complex and raises all sorts of complex biochemical issues to be solved. Why not sticking with simplicity? Because only multicellularity leads to humans, which is the goal. Clear?
dhw: Stating that humans are the goal is certainly clear, but that doesn’t make it true.
DAVID: Agreed. But we did arrive with all the unnecessary baggage for survival we were given. Apes survive without calculus or true consciousness, or wonder about why we apes are here.dhw: I don’t think anyone would disagree that our enhanced consciousness has given us abilities that are not necessary for survival. But as we keep repeating ad nauseam, if evolution was only driven by what was necessary for survival, it would not have gone beyond bacteria! Hence improvement through multicellularity, and the unanswerable question for you: if God’s goal was humans, why did he have to teach the weaverbird how to build its nest? I doubt if I am the only person who fails to follow the logic of the claim that the nest was essential to the balance of nature so that there would be enough food to enable life to continue until humans arrived. Hence my (theistic) alternative: God gave the weaverbird the intelligence to build its own nest. Multiply the weaverbird example by as many million as you like.
Back to Wagner and his patterns in RNA forms and in gene changes which allowed evolution to easily create the wonderfully diverse bush of life.
http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution-rp
I won't repeat the massive amount of material in this long and very informative essay, but the author never questions the source of these patterns. They are simply a given and I think God set it all up to make evolution easy and perhaps to allow organisms to make changes, possibly at the species change level under restraints. Why not look at purpose? That is where we differ in interpretation. Purposeful changes clearly explain why evolution didn't stop at bacteria when, with no purpose it should have.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
dhw: AND YOU KNOW THAT MINE IS A DRIVE TO IMPROVEMENT IMPLEMENTED BY AN AUTONOMOUS, POSSIBLY GOD-GIVEN, INVENTIVE MECHANISM.[/b] Gaps, abhorred by Darwin, who said that unless they would disappear, his theory would fall part. AND YOU AND I HAVE AGREED, AS DID SOME OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES, THAT HE WAS WRONG. FORTUNATELY THIS DOES NOT MAKE HIS THEORY FALL APART. WHAT HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH THE HYPOTHESIS THAT CHANGES IN THE ENVIRONMENT OFFER THE OPPORTUNITY FOR INNOVATION?
DAVID: What it has to do is that innovation is speciation, or great gaps is phenotype. Darwin has never explained the gaps, thus his theory falls apart, other than he recognized that evolution occurred, but not how.
We have been over this countless times, and it has nothing to do with the subject we were discussing, which was that changes in the environment offer opportunities for innovation, which leads to speciation. We agreed years ago that Darwin’s gradualism was wrong.
dhw: ...if God’s goal was humans, why did he have to teach the weaverbird how to build its nest? I doubt if I am the only person who fails to follow the logic of the claim that the nest was essential to the balance of nature so that there would be enough food to enable life to continue until humans arrived. Hence my (theistic) alternative: God gave the weaverbird the intelligence to build its own nest. Multiply the weaverbird example by as many million as you like.
DAVID: Back to Wagner and his patterns in RNA forms and in gene changes which allowed evolution to easily create the wonderfully diverse bush of life.
http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution-rp
I won't repeat the massive amount of material in this long and very informative essay, but the author never questions the source of these patterns. They are simply a given and I think God set it all up to make evolution easy and perhaps to allow organisms to make changes. Why not look at purpose? That is where we differ in interpretation.
I'll have to read the article later, but I have no problem accepting patterns and gene changes. You have spelled out your view of your God’s purpose time and time again, as already summarized above: he preprogrammed or dabbled every innovation and natural wonder in order to balance nature in order to provide food in order to keep life going in order to produce humans. As an explanation of the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s lifestyle, parasitic wasps etc. etc., I’m afraid I find it unconvincing, and I have offered an alternative purpose and modus operandi, both of which you reject.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Friday, October 28, 2016, 14:37 (2734 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Back to Wagner and his patterns in RNA forms and in gene changes which allowed evolution to easily create the wonderfully diverse bush of life.http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution-rp
I won't repeat the massive amount of material in this long and very informative essay, but the author never questions the source of these patterns. They are simply a given and I think God set it all up to make evolution easy and perhaps to allow organisms to make changes. Why not look at purpose? That is where we differ in interpretation.
dhw: I'll have to read the article later, but I have no problem accepting patterns and gene changes. You have spelled out your view of your God’s purpose time and time again, as already summarized above: he preprogrammed or dabbled every innovation and natural wonder in order to balance nature in order to provide food in order to keep life going in order to produce humans. As an explanation of the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s lifestyle, parasitic wasps etc. etc., I’m afraid I find it unconvincing, and I have offered an alternative purpose and modus operandi, both of which you reject.
I repeat, do you see purpose in anything related to evolution? Possibly a purposeful God?
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
DAVID: Back to Wagner and his patterns in RNA forms and in gene changes which allowed evolution to easily create the wonderfully diverse bush of life.
http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution-rp
I won't repeat the massive amount of material in this long and very informative essay, but the author never questions the source of these patterns. They are simply a given and I think God set it all up to make evolution easy and perhaps to allow organisms to make changes. Why not look at purpose? That is where we differ in interpretation.
dhw: I'll have to read the article later, but I have no problem accepting patterns and gene changes. You have spelled out your view of your God’s purpose time and time again, as already summarized above: he preprogrammed or dabbled every innovation and natural wonder in order to balance nature in order to provide food in order to keep life going in order to produce humans. As an explanation of the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch’s lifestyle, parasitic wasps etc. etc., I’m afraid I find it unconvincing, and I have offered an alternative purpose and modus operandi, both of which you reject.
DAVID: I repeat, do you see purpose in anything related to evolution? Possibly a purposeful God?
I didn’t think I would have to repeat what I have repeated so many times, but again perhaps it will provide a diversion from your explanation for the weaverbird’s nest etc. I will start with God. As an agnostic, I fully recognize the possibility that God exists, and if he does, then he would certainly have had a purpose in creating life. I look at the history of life, so far as we know it, and see a higgledy-piggledy story of comings and goings, and so I assume that this endlessly fascinating process of change is what God intended (= his purpose). I don’t think he would create something he didn’t want. His personal motivation, then, might be enjoyment of the spectacle, and curiosity as to what his invention might come up with next. He may well have dabbled, and in the case of humans either the dabble or the natural evolution of his invention has thrown up the most fascinating product of all. I can well imagine that he finds human activity as wonderful and as terrible as we do. To complete this picture, perhaps you could repeat for us your own view of God's purpose in creating humans.
If he does not exist, the purpose is whatever individuals make it, but I have said over and over again that the two purposes “related to evolution” that are clear to me are survival and improvement.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Sunday, October 30, 2016, 00:34 (2733 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I repeat, do you see purpose in anything related to evolution? Possibly a purposeful God?dhw:I fully recognize the possibility that God exists, and if he does, then he would certainly have had a purpose in creating life. I look at the history of life, so far as we know it, and see a higgledy-piggledy story of comings and goings, and so I assume that this endlessly fascinating process of change is what God intended (= his purpose).
If God started life He must have had a goal, and I don't believe it was with the idea of seeing what endless weird permutations of life could be created. That is what you have written. Why not a goal of a very special type of creature that could relate to Him very directly? That makes it very personal.
dhw: I don’t think he would create something he didn’t want. His personal motivation, then, might be enjoyment of the spectacle, and curiosity as to what his invention might come up with next.
You imply that He creates only what He wants, and then switch it around, and say He has to anticipate what comes next. One thought doesn't follow the next.
dhw: He may well have dabbled, and in the case of humans either the dabble or the natural evolution of his invention has thrown up the most fascinating product of all. I can well imagine that he finds human activity as wonderful and as terrible as we do. To complete this picture, perhaps you could repeat for us your own view of God's purpose in creating humans.
My 'purpose' defined above.
dhw:If he does not exist, the purpose is whatever individuals make it, but I have said over and over again that the two purposes “related to evolution” that are clear to me are survival and improvement.
And I view survival and improvement are mechanisms to reach a goal, the real goal a perfected organism that can study His creation and understand it.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
DAVID: I repeat, do you see purpose in anything related to evolution? Possibly a purposeful God?
dhw:I fully recognize the possibility that God exists, and if he does, then he would certainly have had a purpose in creating life. I look at the history of life, so far as we know it, and see a higgledy-piggledy story of comings and goings, and so I assume that this endlessly fascinating process of change is what God intended (= his purpose).
DAVID: If God started life He must have had a goal, and I don't believe it was with the idea of seeing what endless weird permutations of life could be created. That is what you have written.
I know what I have written. My assumption is that if he created a system that produced endless weird permutations of life, he intended the system he created to produce endless weird permutations of life. Why is that so difficult to accept?
DAVID: Why not a goal of a very special type of creature that could relate to Him very directly? That makes it very personal.
Because that does not explain the endless weird permutations of life. However, I do not exclude dabbling from my theistic version. Humans may have evolved without it (a wonderful new permutation, with our enhanced degrees of consciousness) or he may have hit on a new idea and intervened. I have a slight problem, though, about how we can have direction relations with a personal God who, according to you, deliberately hides himself away behind a quantum wall.
dhw: I don’t think he would create something he didn’t want. His personal motivation, then, might be enjoyment of the spectacle, and curiosity as to what his invention might come up with next.
DAVID: You imply that He creates only what He wants, and then switch it around, and say He has to anticipate what comes next. One thought doesn't follow the next.
He doesn’t have to anticipate it. That is the whole point. In my hypothesis, what he wants is a process whose development even he can’t predict. Which is more enjoyable: a story with no surprises, or a story which has you wondering what’s coming next?
dhw:If he does not exist, the purpose is whatever individuals make it, but I have said over and over again that the two purposes “related to evolution” that are clear to me are survival and improvement.
DAVID: And I view survival and improvement are mechanisms to reach a goal, the real goal a perfected organism that can study His creation and understand it.
You asked me for purposes “related to evolution”, and these two apply whether God exists or not. As above, I don’t have a problem with humans being a special case. I do have a problem with your theory that all life’s endless weird permutations, extant and extinct, were specially designed to balance life in order to provide food in order to keep life going in order to produce humans.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Sunday, October 30, 2016, 14:06 (2732 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: If God started life He must have had a goal, and I don't believe it was with the idea of seeing what endless weird permutations of life could be created. That is what you have written.
dhw: I know what I have written. My assumption is that if he created a system that produced endless weird permutations of life, he intended the system he created to produce endless weird permutations of life. Why is that so difficult to accept?
I can accept your supposition. it is quite clear. I don't accept your use of it to negate a purposeful goal.
dhw: I have a slight problem, though, about how we can have direction relations with a personal God who, according to you, deliberately hides himself away behind a quantum wall.
God requires the decision of faith.
DAVID: You imply that He creates only what He wants, and then switch it around, and say He has to anticipate what comes next. One thought doesn't follow the next.
dhw: He doesn’t have to anticipate it. That is the whole point. In my hypothesis, what he wants is a process whose development even he can’t predict. Which is more enjoyable: a story with no surprises, or a story which has you wondering what’s coming next?
You've humanized Him totally. He is a person like no other person. "I am who I am". That is your prerogative as a non-believer.
dhw: I don’t have a problem with humans being a special case. I do have a problem with your theory that all life’s endless weird permutations, extant and extinct, were specially designed to balance life in order to provide food in order to keep life going in order to produce humans.
Yet it explains what we see.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
dhw: My assumption is that if he created a system that produced endless weird permutations of life, he intended the system he created to produce endless weird permutations of life. Why is that so difficult to accept?
DAVID: I can accept your supposition. it is quite clear. I don't accept your use of it to negate a purposeful goal.
Why do you think the creation of a fascinating spectacle including humans is not a purposeful goal?
dhw: I have a slight problem, though, about how we can have direction relations with a personal God who, according to you, deliberately hides himself away behind a quantum wall.
DAVID: God requires the decision of faith.
That still doesn’t allow direct relations if he hides himself.
DAVID: You imply that He creates only what He wants, and then switch it around, and say He has to anticipate what comes next. One thought doesn't follow the next.
dhw: He doesn’t have to anticipate it. That is the whole point. In my hypothesis, what he wants is a process whose development even he can’t predict. Which is more enjoyable: a story with no surprises, or a story which has you wondering what’s coming next?
DAVID: You've humanized Him totally. He is a person like no other person. "I am who I am". That is your prerogative as a non-believer.
Why is wanting an unpredictable spectacle more human than wanting direct relations with other beings, wanting other beings to study and understand one’s work, and requiring other beings to have faith in oneself? My hypothesis has nothing to do with my being an agnostic. Why do you think there are libraries full of books about the nature of God? Do all believers think God created all the weird wonders in order to produce food till humans came? Creationists believe in separate creation, Christians believe that Christ was the son of God born of a virgin, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God will choose 144,000 people to go to heaven, some Muslims think God will love them more and let them into heaven if they kill enough non-Muslims. These are your fellow believers whose beliefs you reject. I think my theistic hypothesis deserves to be taken seriously for its reasoning, not rejected because I am neither a believer nor a disbeliever.
dhw: I don’t have a problem with humans being a special case. I do have a problem with your theory that all life’s endless weird permutations, extant and extinct, were specially designed to balance life in order to provide food in order to keep life going in order to produce humans.
DAVID: Yet it explains what we see.
My hypothesis explains what we see, without the problems of the weaverbird’s nest, of God designing “inadequate” (your word) organisms, of extinctions that are “bad luck” (accidental environmental changes) but meticulously planned (divinely controlled environmental changes), which have led you to admit at times that even you cannot follow what you interpret as your God’s logic.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Monday, October 31, 2016, 17:01 (2731 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: He doesn’t have to anticipate it. That is the whole point. In my hypothesis, what he wants is a process whose development even he can’t predict. Which is more enjoyable: a story with no surprises, or a story which has you wondering what’s coming next?
DAVID: You've humanized Him totally. He is a person like no other person. "I am who I am". That is your prerogative as a non-believer.dhw: Why is wanting an unpredictable spectacle more human than wanting direct relations with other beings, wanting other beings to study and understand one’s work, and requiring other beings to have faith in oneself? My hypothesis has nothing to do with my being an agnostic. Why do you think there are libraries full of books about the nature of God? Do all believers think God created all the weird wonders in order to produce food till humans came? Creationists believe in separate creation, Christians believe that Christ was the son of God born of a virgin, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that God will choose 144,000 people to go to heaven, some Muslims think God will love them more and let them into heaven if they kill enough non-Muslims. These are your fellow believers whose beliefs you reject. I think my theistic hypothesis deserves to be taken seriously for its reasoning, not rejected because I am neither a believer nor a disbeliever.
I've never seen a discussion in books on religion that describe God's purpose as you do. Any references?
dhw: I don’t have a problem with humans being a special case. I do have a problem with your theory that all life’s endless weird permutations, extant and extinct, were specially designed to balance life in order to provide food in order to keep life going in order to produce humans.
DAVID: Yet it explains what we see.dhw: My hypothesis explains what we see, without the problems of the weaverbird’s nest, of God designing “inadequate” (your word) organisms, of extinctions that are “bad luck” (accidental environmental changes) but meticulously planned (divinely controlled environmental changes), which have led you to admit at times that even you cannot follow what you interpret as your God’s logic.
And in the book Natures IQ by believers, they have no problem in accepting the logic that God did it. Faith vs. the picket fence
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
We are currently running interrelated discussions in different posts, so we may as well put them all together.
dhw: I think my theistic hypothesis deserves to be taken seriously for its reasoning, not rejected because I am neither a believer nor a disbeliever.
DAVID: I've never seen a discussion in books on religion that describe God's purpose as you do. Any references?
Caught me! Offhand, no, and I don’t have time to do the research, but I have no doubt that it’s because of my ignorance and not because no-one’s ever before had the idea that your God might have created the world out of curiosity, experimentation, or for his own entertainment. I’m not that original a thinker! It’s probably an offshoot of Deism. However, you have now tried to dismiss this hypothesis because it doesn’t fit in with your personal image of God, then because I am an agnostic, and then because we can’t think of a reference. Why don’t you just consider the rationality of the arguments themselves? What aspects of my evolutionary hypothesis and of my teleological hypothesis do not fit in with the history of life as we know it?
DAVID: And in the book Natures IQ by believers, they have no problem in accepting the logic that God did it. Faith vs. the picket fence.
Nothing to do with faith. We are not talking about the logic that God did it, but the illogic of the weaverbird’s nest etc. that provides food to keep life going till humans come, plus the contradictory claims summarized below:
DAVID (under “sapiens”):…if God made the universe, then He could manage the environment as He wished.
dhw: Of course. Therefore if God made the universe, all we have to do is decide how much he planned, how much he left to chance, and how much he left to the organisms themselves. And on that decision depends our theistic interpretation of how evolution works!
DAVID: Good review of possibilities. I come down on the side of God under tight control.
Fair enough. So God was in tight control of all the environmental changes you previously described as accidental, and the extinction of organisms had nothing to do with Raup’s “bad luck” – as previously explained by you – but was tightly controlled by your God, and he ensured that certain organisms were inadequate to cope with the changes, in contrast to your earlier claim that he did not create inadequate organisms. I’m glad all that has been straightened out. Perhaps, though, to prevent future confusion, you would just confirm that in all these cases, tight control is now your belief.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
dhw: ... but I have said over and over again that the two purposes “related to evolution” that are clear to me are survival and improvement.
DAVID: And I have emphasized a drive to complexity as the main force in evolution.
dhw: I regard innovations such as the senses, sexual reproduction, brains etc. as improvements. You may disagree. Of course such things involve greater complexity. However, I have no idea why your God or organisms themselves should create complexity for no reason other than complexity.
DAVID: Answer, the only road to humans is increasing complexity.
The only road to the duckbilled platypus is also increasing complexity. The only road to every single multicellular organism you can think of is increasing complexity, since life is believed to have begun with single cells. That doesn’t mean that they evolved because they or God wanted them to be more complex just for the sake of being more complex. Instead of them all saying, “I wanner be more complex so one day I might be a human”, I suggest they might have said, “I wanner try adding this bit to see if I can improve my way of life.”
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 01, 2016, 17:51 (2730 days ago) @ dhw
We are currently running interrelated discussions in different posts, so we may as well put them all together.
dhw: I think my theistic hypothesis deserves to be taken seriously for its reasoning, not rejected because I am neither a believer nor a disbeliever.
DAVID: I've never seen a discussion in books on religion that describe God's purpose as you do. Any references?dhw: Caught me! Offhand, no, and I don’t have time to do the research, but I have no doubt that it’s because of my ignorance and not because no-one’s ever before had the idea that your God might have created the world out of curiosity, experimentation, or for his own entertainment. .....What aspects of my evolutionary hypothesis and of my teleological hypothesis do not fit in with the history of life as we know it?
Well, I've read some books on religion's view of God's role and the idea of 'his own entertainment' has never appeared. His state of purpose is an interpretation of his mind which cannot be derived from the history of evolution, except as a human supposition. The usual purpose is to create humans out of love and be a loving God.
DAVID: Good review of possibilities. I come down on the side of God under tight control.
dhw: Fair enough. So God was in tight control of all the environmental changes you previously described as accidental, and the extinction of organisms had nothing to do with Raup’s “bad luck” – as previously explained by you – but was tightly controlled by your God, and he ensured that certain organisms were inadequate to cope with the changes, in contrast to your earlier claim that he did not create inadequate organisms.
He did not create inadequate organisms. On the contrary, at the time they existed they were perfectly adequate, but not for changes that appeared later on. That is obvious, and you seem to be twisting that understanding of evolution from the standpoint of how God acted. Both types of changes occurred, i.e., oxygen good, Chicxulub, bad, and had different effects.
dhw:I’m glad all that has been straightened out. Perhaps, though, to prevent future confusion, you would just confirm that in all these cases, tight control is now your belief.
All I have raised is the possibility that God did have careful control of the environment. I have n o proof, but suspect He had controls in place.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
dhw: I regard innovations such as the senses, sexual reproduction, brains etc. as improvements. You may disagree. Of course such things involve greater complexity. However, I have no idea why your God or organisms themselves should create complexity for no reason other than complexity.
DAVID: Answer, the only road to humans is increasing complexity.
dhw: The only road to the duckbilled platypus is also increasing complexity. The only road to every single multicellular organism you can think of is increasing complexity, since life is believed to have begun with single cells. That doesn’t mean that they evolved because they or God wanted them to be more complex just for the sake of being more complex. Instead of them all saying, “I wanner be more complex so one day I might be a human”, I suggest they might have said, “I wanner try adding this bit to see if I can improve my way of life.”
We simply continue to have different interpretations. You have never justified the complexity appearing after bacteria. I again ask, why bother? You have not demonstrated a 'need' for it to happen, only 'desire' in your current statement.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
Dhw: …What aspects of my evolutionary hypothesis and of my teleological hypothesis do not fit in with the history of life as we know it?
DAVID: …I've read some books on religion's view of God's role and the idea of 'his own entertainment' has never appeared. His state of purpose is an interpretation of his mind which cannot be derived from the history of evolution, except as a human supposition. The usual purpose is to create humans out of love and be a loving God.
If you have not had a personal meeting with your God, then of course his purpose can only be derived by supposition. And that can only be derived from human beings’ subjective experiences and interpretations of the world - either their own or other people’s (e.g. from books). You thought his purpose in designing the vast range of wonders extant and extinct was to produce humans who could have direct relations with him, although he hides behind a quantum wall. I don’t see why he had to design all the wonders in order to produce us, or how one can have direct relations with a being that is hidden. (Having faith that something exists hardly constitutes a direct relationship.) But I agree that he is hidden. So I ask why else he might be hidden. Perhaps he’s lost interest? Or perhaps he’s watching and occasionally secretly dabbling because he enjoys the ever-changing spectacle, which includes humans. Why is this hypothesis less believable and more of a supposition than yours, and what aspects do not fit in with the history of life as we know it?
DAVID: Good review of possibilities. I come down on the side of God under tight control.
dhw: Fair enough. So God was in tight control of all the environmental changes you previously described as accidental, and the extinction of organisms had nothing to do with Raup’s “bad luck” – as previously explained by you – but was tightly controlled by your God, and he ensured that certain organisms were inadequate to cope with the changes, in contrast to your earlier claim that he did not create inadequate organisms.
DAVID: He did not create inadequate organisms. On the contrary, at the time they existed they were perfectly adequate, but not for changes that appeared later on...
So although your God was in tight control of, say, Chixculub, and ensured that only pre-pre-pre-pre-humans were adequate to survive, did he lose his tight control of the organisms you described as “inadequate for the stress”? Or did he deliberately (tight control) make them “inadequate for the stress”? Or were Chicxculub and its consequences out of his control after all?
DAVID: ...That is obvious, and you seem to be twisting that understanding of evolution from the standpoint of how God acted. Both types of changes occurred, i.e., oxygen good, Chicxulub, bad, and had different effects.
Of course both occurred. And you have given your God tight control of both. So once again: how come he designed some organisms that were “adequate” and others that were “inadequate" for the stress of the bad? Or are you now going to scoot back to Raup’s “bad luck” and say goodbye to God’s “tight control”? Your next comment shows that you well aware of your problem:
DAVID: All I have raised is the possibility that God did have careful control of the environment. I have no proof, but suspect He had controls in place.
You didn’t raise it. I pointed out the contradictions in your evolutionary scenario and tried to pin you down so that we could iron them out. You came down on the side of God “under tight control”. Now you say it was possible. Just a suspicion. Therefore it was also possible that he was not in tight control. And so once again you are stuck with all the contradictions I have listed in my “fair enough” comment.
xxxxxxxxx
dhw: I have no idea why your God or organisms themselves should create complexity for no reason other than complexity.
DAVID: Answer, the only road to humans is increasing complexity.
dhw: …The only road to every single multicellular organism you can think of is increasing complexity… Instead of them all saying, “I wanner be more complex so one day I might be a human”, I suggest they might have said, “I wanner try adding this bit to see if I can improve my way of life.”
DAVID: We simply continue to have different interpretations. You have never justified the complexity appearing after bacteria. I again ask, why bother? You have not demonstrated a 'need' for it to happen, only 'desire' in your current statement.
For some reason you are fixated on need, although you acknowledge that there was no need for evolution to progress beyond bacteria. I thought I’d already made it clear that I have added the drive (desire, if you like) for improvement to the need for survival, and that explains why multicellularity led to organisms (cells) combining in different ways to create new forms of life. This drive and its mechanisms may have been planted by your God at the start of life, instead of him planting billions of different programmes (some adequate and some inadequate) to be switched on whenever the environment accidentally changed or he deliberately changed it – whichever view you favour on any particular day!
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 02, 2016, 18:10 (2729 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: So I ask why else he might be hidden. Perhaps he’s lost interest? Or perhaps he’s watching and occasionally secretly dabbling because he enjoys the ever-changing spectacle, which includes humans. Why is this hypothesis less believable and more of a supposition than yours, and what aspects do not fit in with the history of life as we know it?
The issue you have raised is whether there is a personal God or not. Many folks in this country approach their belief from this standpoint. Adler thought the chance was 50/50 in the issue of hearing and acting on prayers. But Adler actually believed in God and was not concerned about how personal He appeared to be. The Muslim religion says you find Him through the magnitude of His works. The Christians point to Jesus as God's direct intervention. Your agnostic suppositions are not found in any mainstream religious thought. But you are allowed to make up any stream of consciousness suppositions you want to satisfy your role on the fence. Why would God bother to invent a universe and life unless He was very interested in how it all goes?
[/i]
dhw: So although your God was in tight control of, say, Chixculub, and ensured that only pre-pre-pre-pre-humans were adequate to survive, did he lose his tight control of the organisms you described as “inadequate for the stress”? Or did he deliberately (tight control) make them “inadequate for the stress”? Or were Chicxculub and its consequences out of his control after all?
Once again, organisms were adequate until challenges changed, and God might well have controlled all of it. There is no way of telling any further.
DAVID: ...That is obvious, and you seem to be twisting that understanding of evolution from the standpoint of how God acted. Both types of changes occurred, i.e., oxygen good, Chicxulub, bad, and had different effects.dhw:Of course both occurred. And you have given your God tight control of both. So once again: how come he designed some organisms that were “adequate” and others that were “inadequate" for the stress of the bad? Or are you now going to scoot back to Raup’s “bad luck” and say goodbye to God’s “tight control”? Your next comment shows that you well aware of your problem:
I have n o problem. You keep twisting the scenario. Animals are adequate until they are inadequate. They are never designed as inadequate . That occurs when their stresses change.
DAVID: All I have raised is the possibility that God did have careful control of the environment. I have no proof, but suspect He had controls in place.dhw: You didn’t raise it. I pointed out the contradictions in your evolutionary scenario and tried to pin you down so that we could iron them out. You came down on the side of God “under tight control”. Now you say it was possible. Just a suspicion. Therefore it was also possible that he was not in tight control. And so once again you are stuck with all the contradictions I have listed in my “fair enough” comment.
I see no contradictions. I take what I see and reach my conclusions. You have the right to disagree
xxxxxxxxx
dhw: For some reason you are fixated on need, although you acknowledge that there was no need for evolution to progress beyond bacteria. I thought I’d already made it clear that I have added the drive (desire, if you like) for improvement to the need for survival, and that explains why multicellularity led to organisms (cells) combining in different ways to create new forms of life. This drive and its mechanisms may have been planted by your God at the start of life, instead of him planting billions of different programmes (some adequate and some inadequate) to be switched on whenever the environment accidentally changed or he deliberately changed it – whichever view you favour on any particular day!
Need is not desire. Survival of bacteria, as you admit, is guaranteed. Why multicellularity is a question you can't answer, unless you admit to purpose, which you refuse to do. The human purpose answers the question.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
dhw: So I ask why else he might be hidden. Perhaps he’s lost interest? Or perhaps he’s watching and occasionally secretly dabbling because he enjoys the ever-changing spectacle, which includes humans. Why is this hypothesis less believable and more of a supposition than yours, and what aspects do not fit in with the history of life as we know it?
DAVID: The issue you have raised is whether there is a personal God or not. Many folks in this country approach their belief from this standpoint. Adler thought the chance was 50/50 in the issue of hearing and acting on prayers. But Adler actually believed in God and was not concerned about how personal He appeared to be. The Muslim religion says you find Him through the magnitude of His works. The Christians point to Jesus as God's direct intervention. Your agnostic suppositions are not found in any mainstream religious thought. But you are allowed to make up any stream of consciousness suppositions you want to satisfy your role on the fence. Why would God bother to invent a universe and life unless He was very interested in how it all goes?
This is the first time I have known you to turn to mainstream religion for support! And I don’t know what you mean by an agnostic “stream of consciousness supposition”. It is a hypothesis that offers a rational and direct answer to your last question: God bothered to invent the universe and life in order to enjoy the spectacle. Your own reading of his purpose is that he wants to have direct relations with humans, but you would rather not answer my question of how that is possible if he hides himself. And you still won’t tell me why my hypothesis is less believable and more of a supposition than yours, or what aspects do not cover life as we know it.
dhw: So although your God was in tight control of, say, Chixculub, and ensured that only pre-pre-pre-pre-humans were adequate to survive, did he lose his tight control of the organisms you described as “inadequate for the stress”? Or did he deliberately (tight control) make them “inadequate for the stress”? Or were Chicxculub and its consequences out of his control after all?
DAVID: Once again, organisms were adequate until challenges changed, and God might well have controlled all of it. There is no way of telling any further.
And again DAVID: Animals are adequate until they are inadequate. They are never designed as inadequate. That occurs when their stresses change.
It is certainly true that animals are adequate until they are inadequate. The problem for you is whether their inadequacy was by design or by “bad luck”. There would be no such problem if organisms were responsible for their own design. Then you could say their cell communities simply couldn't work out ways to cope. But if God preprogrammed them or dabbled them, as you insist he did, then either he deliberately designed them to be inadequate when the stresses changed (= in control), or…oops…he didn’t allow for the new stresses, which would be understandable if he didn’t know the stresses were going to happen (= not in control).
dhw: I pointed out the contradictions in your evolutionary scenario and tried to pin you down so that we could iron them out. You came down on the side of God “under tight control”. Now you say it was possible. Just a suspicion. Therefore it was also possible that he was not in tight control. And so once again you are stuck with all the contradictions I have listed in my “fair enough” comment.
DAVID: I see no contradictions. I take what I see and reach my conclusions. You have the right to disagree.
The basic contradiction lies in the fact that one day you conclude that the course of evolution depends on luck, the next day that God is in tight control, and the next day that it’s only possible that God is in control. Each of your daily beliefs throws up different problems. However, perhaps we should drop the subject for the time being, as you are clearly on safer ground sniping at my own hypotheses!
xxxxxxxxx
DAVID: Need is not desire. Survival of bacteria, as you admit, is guaranteed. Why multicellularity is a question you can't answer, unless you admit to purpose, which you refuse to do. The human purpose answers the question.
Of course need is not desire. My proposal is that evolution is powered by need AND the desire (drive) for improvement. The purpose I “admit to” is need for survival AND the desire for improvement (possibly God-given), which explains multicellularity AND the vast range of innovations and natural wonders that constitute the history of life on Earth, including humans. As for an overall purpose, you refuse even to consider the hypothetical theistic purpose I have offered because it’s not to be found in mainstream religion, and because I’m an agnostic, but apparently not because you can find any fault in the reasoning.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Thursday, November 03, 2016, 17:48 (2728 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: The issue you have raised is whether there is a personal God or not. Many folks in this country approach their belief from this standpoint. Adler thought the chance was 50/50 in the issue of hearing and acting on prayers. But Adler actually believed in God and was not concerned about how personal He appeared to be.
dhw: This is the first time I have known you to turn to mainstream religion for support! Your own reading of his purpose is that he wants to have direct relations with humans, but you would rather not answer my question of how that is possible if he hides himself. And you still won’t tell me why my hypothesis is less believable and more of a supposition than yours, or what aspects do not cover life as we know it.
Yes, I have to turn to the religious thought I've read. After all great thinkers have recognized that God keeps himself concealed, and it does present a problem that you recognize. The book a concealed God explains a great deal of the discussion and comes down on the side that only God explains what we see in reality. Remember I have to deal with the concealment in making my choice to accept that God exists, and I do it on the basis of what I see in His works. As for your hypothesis which is obviously anthropomorphic, I see purpose, not a spectacle for enjoyment.
dhw: It is certainly true that animals are adequate until they are inadequate. The problem for you is whether their inadequacy was by design or by “bad luck”. There would be no such problem if organisms were responsible for their own design. Then you could say their cell communities simply couldn't work out ways to cope. But if God preprogrammed them or dabbled them, as you insist he did, then either he deliberately designed them to be inadequate when the stresses changed (= in control), or…oops…he didn’t allow for the new stresses, which would be understandable if he didn’t know the stresses were going to happen (= not in control).
I simply accept that God is in control and fully knows what He is doing. You are still anthropomorphizing him by suggesting He can lose control.
dhw: The basic contradiction lies in the fact that one day you conclude that the course of evolution depends on luck, the next day that God is in tight control, and the next day that it’s only possible that God is in control. Each of your daily beliefs throws up different problems. However, perhaps we should drop the subject for the time being, as you are clearly on safer ground sniping at my own hypotheses!
I brought up Raup's idea about luck to show you that 90% of extinctions were due to sudden environmental changes, the organisms could not handle. "Luck" is his term in his book. Extermination of certain organisms allowed for the appearance of new organisms, advancing on the evolutionary bush. That is obvious. My guess is God is in tight control, but every time I admit I have no proof I have to show my position also relies of a conclusion of faith. And then you jump on it, because you have concluded there is no positive answer for you. But surprise, some of us have a positive answer that satisfies us. No contradictions.
xxxxxxxxxDAVID: Need is not desire. Survival of bacteria, as you admit, is guaranteed. Why multicellularity is a question you can't answer, unless you admit to purpose, which you refuse to do. The human purpose answers the question.
dhw: Of course need is not desire. My proposal is that evolution is powered by need AND the desire (drive) for improvement.
I'll pick you apart. Why should bacteria have a desire for improvement. They are built to survive anywhere in any form of stress. They don't need improvement to multicellularity.
dhw: The purpose I “admit to” is need for survival AND the desire for improvement (possibly God-given), which explains multicellularity AND the vast range of innovations and natural wonders that constitute the history of life on Earth, including humans.
Desire is an emotion. On the part of single-celled animals? Oh, I forgot, they are sentient, which means they receive stimuli and have the ability to edit their DNA. That is all Shapiro says. Find anything else in his book. I can't. The desire is God's.
dhw: As for an overall purpose, you refuse even to consider the hypothetical theistic purpose I have offered because it’s not to be found in mainstream religion, and because I’m an agnostic, but apparently not because you can find any fault in the reasoning.
See above.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
Part One
dhw: This is the first time I have known you to turn to mainstream religion for support!
DAVID: Yes, I have to turn to the religious thought I've read. After all great thinkers have recognized that God keeps himself concealed, and it does present a problem that you recognize.
It doesn’t take much great thinking to recognize that if God exists, he is concealed and, as you know, many great thinkers believe that “concealment” in fact means non-existence. It does indeed present a problem which both of us recognize.
DAVID: The book a concealed God explains a great deal of the discussion and comes down on the side that only God explains what we see in reality. Remember I have to deal with the concealment in making my choice to accept that God exists, and I do it on the basis of what I see in His works.
I respect this as a good reason for believing in him: the works are too complex to attribute to chance. This is one reason why I am able to wear a theistic hat.
DAVID: As for your hypothesis which is obviously anthropomorphic, I see purpose, not a spectacle for enjoyment.
This is a total non sequitur. The purpose you see is your hidden God designing every form of life and natural wonder in order to produce humans so that they and he can have what you call direct relations. (You refuse to answer how one can have direct relations with a hidden being.) Enjoyment IS a purpose, and it would explain why your God remains hidden and why he might invent a mechanism that provides the unpredictability so essential to a good story. And you still haven’t explained why my hypothesis is more of a supposition than yours, and what aspects of it do not fit in with life as we know it. ”Anthropomorphic” is a non argument. Nobody knows God's true nature, if he exists, but many of the religious books you have read will tell you that “God created man in his own image” (Genesis 6). That's as good a speculation as any, and your idea of having relations with God presupposes common ground, doesn’t it?
dhw: It is certainly true that animals are adequate until they are inadequate. The problem for you is whether their inadequacy was by design or by “bad luck” etc.
DAVID: I simply accept that God is in control and fully knows what He is doing. You are still anthropomorphizing him by suggesting He can lose control.
Anthropomorphizing is a non argument (see above). But you have missed the whole point. He can sacrifice control if he wants to (and will fully know what he is doing). My hypothesis is that he did precisely that, because the unpredictable is more enjoyable than the predictable. You believe he gave humans free will. That is the same process of sacrificing control. I presume you think he did so because he wanted to test their faith in him. How anthropomorphic is that!
dhw: The basic contradiction lies in the fact that one day you conclude that the course of evolution depends on luck, the next day that God is in tight control, and the next day that it’s only possible that God is in control.
DAVID: I brought up Raup's idea about luck to show you that 90% of extinctions were due to sudden environmental changes, the organisms could not handle. "Luck" is his term in his book.
You know that I know that most extinctions were caused by sudden changes in the environment. Raup's "bad luck" was your attempted explanation! (But see below)
DAVID: Extermination of certain organisms allowed for the appearance of new organisms, advancing on the evolutionary bush. That is obvious. My guess is God is in tight control, but every time I admit I have no proof I have to show my position also relies of a conclusion of faith. And then you jump on it, because you have concluded there is no positive answer for you. But surprise, some of us have a positive answer that satisfies us. No contradictions.
I don’t have a problem with faith in tight control. I only have a problem with your refusal to consider the implications. Firstly, if he is in tight control, don’t tell me extinctions were the result of bad luck. (Of course, you have now disowned the Raup explanation you quoted.) Secondly, if he is in tight control, don’t tell me that the organisms which he designed and which died through being “inadequate for the stress” (your words) were not designed in such a way that they were inadequate for the stress! If he is in tight control, and organized their extermination, he must have known that their design would not stand up to the new conditions. This is not a matter of faith or of not having a positive answer. It’s simple logic. As for positive answers: Chixculub was Raup's "bad luck" for the dinosaurs and good luck for the survivors; or God got fed up with dinosaurs and decided to try something different. They both fit in with what happened, don't they?
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
Part Two
dhw: My proposal is that evolution is powered by need AND the desire (drive) for improvement.
DAVID: I'll pick you apart. Why should bacteria have a desire for improvement. They are built to survive anywhere in any form of stress. They don't need improvement to multicellularity.
It only takes two to tango. Any species that is successful will stay as it is, but it only requires the odd individual exception to start something new. Some – not ALL - single cells merged to begin the process of multicellularity. It was successful. Some – not ALL - individual fish left the water and set off a process leading to land animals. If you believe in common descent, EVERY innovation took place in some – not ALL – existing individuals and led to new species.
dhw: The purpose I “admit to” is need for survival AND the desire for improvement (possibly God-given), which explains multicellularity AND the vast range of innovations and natural wonders that constitute the history of life on Earth, including humans.
DAVID: Desire is an emotion. On the part of single-celled animals? Oh, I forgot, they are sentient, which means they receive stimuli and have the ability to edit their DNA. That is all Shapiro says. Find anything else in his book. I can't. The desire is God's.
It was you who introduced the word “desire”, and I suspected there was an ulterior motive, which is why I put “drive” in brackets (see the first quote above). No, I do not believe bacteria are filled with human emotions, and of course Shapiro doesn’t say they are. Not even you will deny that bacteria have a drive for survival, and if your God can implant that drive, he can also implant a drive for improvement, as implemented by the innovative intelligence of individual organisms.
Xxxxxx
DAVID: Massimo Pigliucci takes on Wagner and disagrees with his Platonic approach:
http://nautil.us/blog/the-neo_platonic-argument-for-evolution-couldnt-be-more-wrong
David’s comment: Wagner may well by off on a wild tear, but Pigliucci's reliance on the power of natural selection is also off the rails. Natural selections sits passively waiting for innovation. We still don't know how that happens, or why it happens, if there is no need for innovation as in the jump from bacteria to multicellularity.
For once we are in agreement! Pigliucci also takes random mutations for granted as the cause of innovation. You need a lot of faith to believe that.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Friday, November 04, 2016, 19:52 (2727 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: It only takes two to tango. Any species that is successful will stay as it is, but it only requires the odd individual exception to start something new. Some – not ALL - single cells merged to begin the process of multicellularity. It was successful. Some – not ALL - individual fish left the water and set off a process leading to land animals. If you believe in common descent, EVERY innovation took place in some – not ALL – existing individuals and led to new species.
What you stated is true. Innovation happened, but that still doesn't tell us why multicellularity was necessary for continuously successful bacteria, which are still here everywhere, even seemingly impossible environments.
dhw: It was you who introduced the word “desire”, and I suspected there was an ulterior motive, which is why I put “drive” in brackets (see the first quote above). No, I do not believe bacteria are filled with human emotions, and of course Shapiro doesn’t say they are. Not even you will deny that bacteria have a drive for survival, and if your God can implant that drive, he can also implant a drive for improvement, as implemented by the innovative intelligence of individual organisms.
Same answer. Bacteria have a full complement of survival abilities. They do not need improvement. Given by God, most probably. I am not nefarious. You constantly use emotion in thinking about God.
XxxxxxDavid’s comment: Wagner may well be off on a wild tear, but Pigliucci's reliance on the power of natural selection is also off the rails. Natural selections sits passively waiting for innovation. We still don't know how that happens, or why it happens, if there is no need for innovation as in the jump from bacteria to multicellularity.
dhw: For once we are in agreement! Pigliucci also takes random mutations for granted as the cause of innovation. You need a lot of faith to believe that.
Of course we an agree.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Friday, November 04, 2016, 18:03 (2727 days ago) @ dhw
I respect this as a good reason for believing in him: the works are too complex to attribute to chance. This is one reason why I am able to wear a theistic hat.DAVID: As for your hypothesis which is obviously anthropomorphic, I see purpose, not a spectacle for enjoyment.
dhw: This is a total non sequitur. The purpose you see is your hidden God designing every form of life and natural wonder in order to produce humans so that they and he can have what you call direct relations. (You refuse to answer how one can have direct relations with a hidden being.) Enjoyment IS a purpose, and it would explain why your God remains hidden and why he might invent a mechanism that provides the unpredictability so essential to a good story.
We don't know God's nature. You've admitted that. Enjoyment is a human emotion. I don't even know if God loves us. I've said that. He may be emotionless. As for relating to him, what about prayer? It is you who humanizes him! See you comment below:
dhw: And you still haven’t explained why my hypothesis is more of a supposition than yours, and what aspects of it do not fit in with life as we know it. ”Anthropomorphic” is a non argument. Nobody knows God's true nature, if he exists, but many of the religious books you have read will tell you that “God created man in his own image” (Genesis 6). That's as good a speculation as any, and your idea of having relations with God presupposes common ground, doesn’t it?
Again, common ground with God does not exist! That was explained to Abraham. I am in His image, as you know I believe, through consciousness only. Your hypothesis does not accept God, humanizes Him, and thinks survival and improvement are necessary drives for bacteria, which have needed no for help to go into every weird environment. And it is obvious that 'natural chance' evolution never needed human to appear.
dhw:But you have missed the whole point. He can sacrifice control if he wants to (and will fully know what he is doing). My hypothesis is that he did precisely that, because the unpredictable is more enjoyable than the predictable. You believe he gave humans free will. That is the same process of sacrificing control. I presume you think he did so because he wanted to test their faith in him. How anthropomorphic is that!
Again, giving God emotions and humanizing Him. Of course He can loosen controls. He did give us free will, but I view it as a challenge, not a test of faith. Again you have proposed He 'wants'. He's never told us. You are continuously humanizing Him.
dhw: I don’t have a problem with faith in tight control. I only have a problem with your refusal to consider the implications. Firstly, if he is in tight control, don’t tell me extinctions were the result of bad luck. ...Secondly, if he is in tight control, don’t tell me that the organisms which he designed and which died through being “inadequate for the stress” (your words) were not designed in such a way that they were inadequate for the stress! If he is in tight control, and organized their extermination, he must have known that their design would not stand up to the new conditions. This is not a matter of faith or of not having a positive answer. It’s simple logic. As for positive answers: Chixculub was Raup's "bad luck" for the dinosaurs and good luck for the survivors; or God got fed up with dinosaurs and decided to try something different. They both fit in with what happened, don't they?
Your interpretation is not incorrect. My point is organisms are adapted for current stresses if they are surviving at the time. Of course, God can change the stresses. And once again God 'got fed up'! Note how you give Him human thoughts! I don't even try
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
DAVID: As for your hypothesis which is obviously anthropomorphic, I see purpose, not a spectacle for enjoyment.
dhw: This is a total non sequitur. The purpose you see is your hidden God designing every form of life and natural wonder in order to produce humans so that they and he can have what you call direct relations. (You refuse to answer how one can have direct relations with a hidden being.) Enjoyment IS a purpose, and it would explain why your God remains hidden and why he might invent a mechanism that provides the unpredictability so essential to a good story.
DAVID: We don't know God's nature. You've admitted that. Enjoyment is a human emotion. I don't even know if God loves us. I've said that. He may be emotionless. As for relating to him, what about prayer? It is you who humanizes him! See you comment below:
The moment we start to speculate about God’s purpose, we are bound to humanize him! God creating life in order to produce humans so that he can have direct relations with us is humanizing him. God hiding himself in order to test our faith is humanizing him. What is the point of prayer if you are praying to something that has no attributes and with which we have no common ground, as you state below? He wouldn’t even understand what we were saying or what we were talking about if there was no common ground. You dismiss my hypothesis, complaining that none of the mainstream religions support it. Please tell me which of the mainstream religions advocates a God without any human attributes.
dhw:”Anthropomorphic” is a non argument. Nobody knows God's true nature, if he exists, but many of the religious books you have read will tell you that “God created man in his own image” (Genesis 6). That's as good a speculation as any, and your idea of having relations with God presupposes common ground, doesn’t it?
DAVID: Again, common ground with God does not exist! That was explained to Abraham. I am in His image, as you know I believe, through consciousness only.
Consciousness without attributes may as well not be there. It is you who constantly bring up the subject of God’s purpose, but why talk about purpose at all, since purposefulness is a human attribute?
DAVID: Your hypothesis does not accept God…..
If we are talking about God’s possible purpose, it’s pretty difficult to leave out God!
DAVID: …humanizes Him, and thinks survival and improvement are necessary drives for bacteria, which have needed no for help to go into every weird environment. And it is obvious that 'natural chance' evolution never needed human to appear.
All covered above. Improvement is NOT necessary!
dhw: But you have missed the whole point. He can sacrifice control if he wants to (and will fully know what he is doing). My hypothesis is that he did precisely that, because the unpredictable is more enjoyable than the predictable. You believe he gave humans free will. That is the same process of sacrificing control. I presume you think he did so because he wanted to test their faith in him. How anthropomorphic is that!
DAVID: Again, giving God emotions and humanizing Him. Of course He can loosen controls. He did give us free will, but I view it as a challenge, not a test of faith. Again you have proposed He 'wants'. He's never told us. You are continuously humanizing Him.
A challenge to do what? But again you have missed the point. You wrote that I was “anthropomorphizing him by suggesting He can lose control”, and my point was that he can sacrifice control if he wants to. As regards “humanizing”, see above. According to you he wants to challenge us, wants to have direct relations with us, wants to test our faith, but you simply leave out the word “want”.
dhw: Secondly, if he is in tight control, don’t tell me that the organisms which he designed and which died through being “inadequate for the stress” (your words) were not designed in such a way that they were inadequate for the stress!...
DAVID: Your interpretation is not incorrect. My point is organisms are adapted for current stresses if they are surviving at the time. Of course, God can change the stresses.
I don’t think anyone could possibly disagree that if organisms survive, they are adapted for current stresses. And if they don’t survive, they are not adapted. But thank you for accepting the correctness of my argument.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Saturday, November 05, 2016, 14:45 (2726 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: The moment we start to speculate about God’s purpose, we are bound to humanize him! God creating life in order to produce humans so that he can have direct relations with us is humanizing him. God hiding himself in order to test our faith is humanizing him. What is the point of prayer if you are praying to something that has no attributes and with which we have no common ground, as you state below?
I start off by accepting Adler's admonition: God is a person like no other person. He cannot be conceived of in any human terms. We do not know if he has emotions like ours. Of course He may have purposes, if He is a conscious being. Being concealed may or may not be a test of faith. That is our human conclusion, which may be wrong about his intent. You've forgotten we have consciousness also. We can relate: He is concealed but that dies not mean consciously disconnected.
dhw: Please tell me which of the mainstream religions advocates a God without any human attributes.
Of course religions give Him human attributes. I don't follow religion.
DAVID: Again, common ground with God does not exist! That was explained to Abraham. I am in His image, as you know I believe, through consciousness only.
Consciousness without attributes may as well not be there. It is you who constantly bring up the subject of God’s purpose, but why talk about purpose at all, since purposefulness is a human attribute?
As above, God, a special person, can have purpose. We can know Him only through His works! His motives are a guess. His emotions are a guess. His desires are a guess. BUT, only a planning mind could have created this universe and living beings who are capable of holding this discussion.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
dhw: The moment we start to speculate about God’s purpose, we are bound to humanize him! God creating life in order to produce humans so that he can have direct relations with us is humanizing him. God hiding himself in order to test our faith is humanizing him. What is the point of prayer if you are praying to something that has no attributes and with which we have no common ground, as you state below?
DAVID: I start off by accepting Adler's admonition: God is a person like no other person. He cannot be conceived of in any human terms. We do not know if he has emotions like ours. Of course He may have purposes, if He is a conscious being.
This whole discussion centres on your insistence that God has a purpose: “Why multicellularity is a question you can’t answer, unless you admit to purpose, which you refuse to do. The human purpose answers the question.” (Wednesday 2 Nov.) Now all of a sudden you want to downgrade the importance of purpose! “He may have purposes, if He is a conscious being.” According to you, he has been the universal consciousness for ever and ever, the conscious first cause, and his purpose was to produce humans. But I have no objections if you are now willing to accept that your beliefs are no less "humanizing" and no less interpretive than my hypotheses.I would simply ask you to drop those arguments if you genuinely want to discuss God’s possible purpose for evolution.
DAVID: Being concealed may or may not be a test of faith. That is our human conclusion, which may be wrong about his intent. You've forgotten we have consciousness also. We can relate: He is concealed but that does not mean consciously disconnected.
A one-way relationship with a hidden being doesn’t sound very direct to me, or do you believe that he actually reveals himself to those who have faith in him? But yes, our human conclusions may be wrong about his intent. You may be wrong to say his intent was to produce humans with whom he could have direct relations, and I may be wrong to suggest that his intent was enjoyment.
dhw: Please tell me which of the mainstream religions advocates a God without any human attributes.
DAVID: Of course religions give Him human attributes. I don't follow religion.
Then please don’t quote religion at me if I offer a view of God’s purpose that is not found in “mainstream religion”.
DAVID: Again, common ground with God does not exist! That was explained to Abraham. I am in His image, as you know I believe, through consciousness only. Dhw: Consciousness without attributes may as well not be there. It is you who constantly bring up the subject of God’s purpose, but why talk about purpose at all, since purposefulness is a human attribute?
DAVID: As above, God, a special person, can have purpose. We can know Him only through His works! His motives are a guess. His emotions are a guess. His desires are a guess.
Agreed. It is therefore absurd to complain that his creation of higgledy-piggledy life as a spectacle for his own enjoyment is not just as possible a purpose as his creation of life geared solely to the production of humans with whom he can have direct relations. And once again, it is equally absurd to claim that the one hypothesis humanizes God and the other does not.
DAVID: BUT, only a planning mind could have created this universe and living beings who are capable of holding this discussion.
For the sake of this discussion on the nature of God and his possible purpose - which is the challenge you issued to me – I have of course accepted the hypothesis of God’s existence.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Saturday, February 03, 2018, 01:30 (2272 days ago) @ dhw
The genetic pathway in algae further elucidated:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180202112649.htm
"Tetrabaena is a member of a lineage of green-algae known as the volvocine lineage. The lineage is a model lineage for understanding how multicellularity evolved. By studying the genome of this simple alga, a number of genetic mechanisms that control how cells divide were associated with the origin of multicellularity.
"By painstakingly piecing together the whole genome sequence for the alga over a period of over two years, using various genome-sequencing methodologies, Featherston has identified the ubiquitin proteasomal pathway (UPP) as a process that plays a key role in the evolution of multicellularity. This pathway is involved in regulating many activities in cells by targeting proteins for destruction thereby maintaining a careful balance of proteins in cells.
"'The UPP has been implicated in many human cancers and even as a potential target for treating cancers. From this study it seems that alterations to this pathway were important for how multicellularity evolved in these algae," says Featherston.
"UPP is a complicated pathway that controls the cellular concentration of key proteins that drive cell division and it plays a role in many cellular functions. Featherston's study suggests that UPP may play a regulating how many divisions each species of volvocine undergoes through degradation of key molecules that control cell division.
***
"Featherston's work shows that the evolution of multicellularity is associated with lineage-specific genetic developments.
"Multicellularity has evolved at least 25 times independently, but in all likelihood while certain general biological mechanisms -- like cells-sticking together or modified cell cycles -- may be shared, the actual genes driving these developments will mostly be unique to each lineage," he says. "Almost all the families that are found in other organisms can be found in a diverse array of unicellular organisms, suggesting that the genes that gave rise to multicellularity were derived from genes that were already present in the unicellular ancestor but may have been duplicated to form new genes that now have new functions." (my bold)
Comment: Note my bold. What I am surprised about is that multcellularity is clear evidence of convergence in evolution and I view this as a strong indicator of a drive to complexity as part of the mechanism that drives evolution.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
QUOTE: "Multicellularity has evolved at least 25 times independently, but in all likelihood while certain general biological mechanisms -- like cells-sticking together or modified cell cycles -- may be shared, the actual genes driving these developments will mostly be unique to each lineage," he says. "Almost all the families that are found in other organisms can be found in a diverse array of unicellular organisms, suggesting that the genes that gave rise to multicellularity were derived from genes that were already present in the unicellular ancestor but may have been duplicated to form new genes that now have new functions.[/i]" (David's bold)
DAVID’s comment: Note my bold. What I am surprised about is that multcellularity is clear evidence of convergence in evolution and I view this as a strong indicator of a drive to complexity as part of the mechanism that drives evolution.
While I accept that evolution is often convergent, I would see this article as evidence of divergence as cells cooperate in forming different combinations in the quest for survival and/or improvement. And I doubt very much that they say to one another: “Let’s get more complex so that we can be more complex.”
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Saturday, February 03, 2018, 19:52 (2271 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "Multicellularity has evolved at least 25 times independently, but in all likelihood while certain general biological mechanisms -- like cells-sticking together or modified cell cycles -- may be shared, the actual genes driving these developments will mostly be unique to each lineage," he says. "Almost all the families that are found in other organisms can be found in a diverse array of unicellular organisms, suggesting that the genes that gave rise to multicellularity were derived from genes that were already present in the unicellular ancestor but may have been duplicated to form new genes that now have new functions.[/i]" (David's bold)
DAVID’s comment: Note my bold. What I am surprised about is that multcellularity is clear evidence of convergence in evolution and I view this as a strong indicator of a drive to complexity as part of the mechanism that drives evolution.
dhw: While I accept that evolution is often convergent, I would see this article as evidence of divergence as cells cooperate in forming different combinations in the quest for survival and/or improvement. And I doubt very much that they say to one another: “Let’s get more complex so that we can be more complex.”
As cell puppets talk in your play, it is my point that your dialogue is exactly on point. Complexity builds on complexity. Bacteria have never gone extinct, but multicellular forms always do. If survivability were an issue, multicellularity would never have occurred. And while the bacteria are talking, from their easy living standards, they wonder why we like being so complex. Small cell chauvinism on display. By the way , we have much agreement. Complexity goes hand in had with improvement, if designed that way.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
DAVID’s comment: What I am surprised about is that multcellularity is clear evidence of convergence in evolution and I view this as a strong indicator of a drive to complexity as part of the mechanism that drives evolution.
dhw: While I accept that evolution is often convergent, I would see this article as evidence of divergence as cells cooperate in forming different combinations in the quest for survival and/or improvement. And I doubt very much that they say to one another: “Let’s get more complex so that we can be more complex.”
DAVID: As cell puppets talk in your play, it is my point that your dialogue is exactly on point. Complexity builds on complexity. Bacteria have never gone extinct, but multicellular forms always do. If survivability were an issue, multicellularity would never have occurred. And while the bacteria are talking, from their easy living standards, they wonder why we like being so complex. Small cell chauvinism on display. By the way, we have much agreement. Complexity goes hand in had with improvement, if designed that way.
Your last sentence is “exactly on point”. Complexity without a purpose makes no sense. Complexity for the sake of improvement makes perfect sense. Improvement “builds on” improvement. According to you, until 30,000 years ago ALL improvements were geared solely to survivability, so it is absurd to say survivability was not an issue. Evolution has advanced through the drive for survival and/or improvement. Doesn’t that make perfect sense?
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Sunday, February 04, 2018, 20:27 (2270 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: As cell puppets talk in your play, it is my point that your dialogue is exactly on point. Complexity builds on complexity. Bacteria have never gone extinct, but multicellular forms always do. If survivability were an issue, multicellularity would never have occurred. And while the bacteria are talking, from their easy living standards, they wonder why we like being so complex. Small cell chauvinism on display. By the way, we have much agreement. Complexity goes hand in hand with improvement, if designed that way.dhw: Your last sentence is “exactly on point”. Complexity without a purpose makes no sense.
The fact that I always espouse complexity leading to the human brain is left out of your discussion. Of course complexity without purpose is nonsensical.
dhw: Complexity for the sake of improvement makes perfect sense. Improvement “builds on” improvement. According to you, until 30,000 years ago ALL improvements were geared solely to survivability, so it is absurd to say survivability was not an issue.
Species survability is always a major issue.
dhw: Evolution has advanced through the drive for survival and/or improvement. Doesn’t that make perfect sense?
Complexity and improvement are most important. Survivability results from those two.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
DAVID: As cell puppets talk in your play, it is my point that your dialogue is exactly on point. Complexity builds on complexity. Bacteria have never gone extinct, but multicellular forms always do. If survivability were an issue, multicellularity would never have occurred. And while the bacteria are talking, from their easy living standards, they wonder why we like being so complex. Small cell chauvinism on display. By the way, we have much agreement. Complexity goes hand in hand with improvement, if designed that way.
dhw: Your last sentence is “exactly on point”. Complexity without a purpose makes no sense.
DAVID: The fact that I always espouse complexity leading to the human brain is left out of your discussion. Of course complexity without purpose is nonsensical.
It’s not left out. You have always wanted to substitute your “complexity” for my “improvement”, and I have always objected to complexity for its own sake. On the "chimps" thread you wrote: "Survivability is a minor evolutionary issue. Advancing complexity under God's guidance is a major issue." However, I’m delighted that we are now in agreement.
dhw: Complexity for the sake of improvement makes perfect sense. Improvement “builds on” improvement. According to you, until 30,000 years ago ALL improvements were geared solely to survivability, so it is absurd to say survivability was not an issue.
DAVID: Species survability is always a major issue.
And again I am delighted that we are now in agreement.
dhw: Evolution has advanced through the drive for survival and/or improvement. Doesn’t that make perfect sense?
DAVID: Complexity and improvement are most important. Survivability results from those two.
I think we are close to agreement, but I would rephrase your comment: The need to survive is of prime importance as an evolutionary driving force. Survivability does not necessitate complexity, but enhanced survivability may result from successful attempts to improve, which may lead to greater complexity.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Monday, February 05, 2018, 18:28 (2269 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: As cell puppets talk in your play, it is my point that your dialogue is exactly on point. Complexity builds on complexity. Bacteria have never gone extinct, but multicellular forms always do. If survivability were an issue, multicellularity would never have occurred. And while the bacteria are talking, from their easy living standards, they wonder why we like being so complex. Small cell chauvinism on display. By the way, we have much agreement. Complexity goes hand in hand with improvement, if designed that way.
dhw: Your last sentence is “exactly on point”. Complexity without a purpose makes no sense.
DAVID: The fact that I always espouse complexity leading to the human brain is left out of your discussion. Of course complexity without purpose is nonsensical.
dhw: It’s not left out. You have always wanted to substitute your “complexity” for my “improvement”, and I have always objected to complexity for its own sake. On the "chimps" thread you wrote: "Survivability is a minor evolutionary issue. Advancing complexity under God's guidance is a major issue." However, I’m delighted that we are now in agreement.
You've missed the meaning of end of the sentence: 'if designed that way' which means complexity may not result in improvement, just complexity. Back to whales produces complexity and a physiological mess which required all sorts of messy adaptations to make them work.
dhw: Complexity for the sake of improvement makes perfect sense. Improvement “builds on” improvement. According to you, until 30,000 years ago ALL improvements were geared solely to survivability, so it is absurd to say survivability was not an issue.
DAVID: Species survability is always a major issue.
dhw: And again I am delighted that we are now in agreement.
But you are agreeing with me, based on all your comments on individual survival. Let's concentrate on species level only.
dhw: Evolution has advanced through the drive for survival and/or improvement. Doesn’t that make perfect sense?
DAVID: Complexity and improvement are most important. Survivability results from those two.dhw: I think we are close to agreement, but I would rephrase your comment: The need to survive is of prime importance as an evolutionary driving force. Survivability does not necessitate complexity, but enhanced survivability may result from successful attempts to improve, which may lead to greater complexity.
Totally backward. Complexity occurs all throughout evolution, much of which turns out not to be improvements. You cannot deny humans are overly complex and that complexity is not necessary for individual survival. All through evolution species that survived eventually reached to point of the primate level, which is obviously the top level, and more complex than others. Birds are not apes in total complexity. Both survive as species so they are improved enough. Do you see that difference in concept?
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
DAVID: The fact that I always espouse complexity leading to the human brain is left out of your discussion. Of course complexity without purpose is nonsensical.
dhw: It’s not left out. You have always wanted to substitute your “complexity” for my “improvement”, and I have always objected to complexity for its own sake. On the "chimps" thread you wrote: "Survivability is a minor evolutionary issue. Advancing complexity under God's guidance is a major issue." However, I’m delighted that we are now in agreement.
DAVID: You've missed the meaning of end of the sentence: 'if designed that way' which means complexity may not result in improvement, just complexity. Back to whales produces complexity and a physiological mess which required all sorts of messy adaptations to make them work.
You agreed that “complexity without a purpose makes no sense”. If the purpose is not improvement, what is it? My hypothesis has cells/cell communities designing improvements which may lead to added complexity. Yours has God doing the same thing. Not complexity for its own sake, which makes no sense even to you. Whales are only a problem for you, because “messy adaptations” don’t fit in with your notion of an always-in-control God personally preprogramming or dabbling every major change (so that he can produce Homo sapiens' brain). It all makes perfect sense if intelligent cell communities keep looking for ways to survive and/or improve. (One would hardly expect them to find perfect answers to EVERY problem, which might also help to explain the 99% extinction!)
DAVID: Complexity and improvement are most important. Survivability results from those two.
dhw: I think we are close to agreement, but I would rephrase your comment: The need to survive is of prime importance as an evolutionary driving force. Survivability does not necessitate complexity, but enhanced survivability may result from successful attempts to improve, which may lead to greater complexity.
DAVID: Totally backward. Complexity occurs all throughout evolution, much of which turns out not to be improvements. You cannot deny humans are overly complex and that complexity is not necessary for individual survival. All through evolution species that survived eventually reached to point of the primate level, which is obviously the top level, and more complex than others. Birds are not apes in total complexity. Both survive as species so they are improved enough. Do you see that difference in concept?
I’m afraid I’m having great difficulty in finding any coherent line of argument here. I have said that survivability does not necessitate complexity, and you tell me complexity is not necessary for individual survival. Totally backward? You say primates are top,and apes are more complex than birds but both have survived and have finished improving. Why is that the exact opposite of saying that enhanced survivability may result from attempts to improve, which may lead to greater complexity, e.g. a species improves survivability by inventing spears, and complexifies or enlarges its brain as a result? I can’t see any connection between the two “concepts”, let alone why one is “totally backward” from the other.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 06, 2018, 19:05 (2268 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: You've missed the meaning of end of the sentence: 'if designed that way' which means complexity may not result in improvement, just complexity. Back to whales produces complexity and a physiological mess which required all sorts of messy adaptations to make them work.dhw: You agreed that “complexity without a purpose makes no sense”. If the purpose is not improvement, what is it? My hypothesis has cells/cell communities designing improvements which may lead to added complexity. Yours has God doing the same thing. Not complexity for its own sake, which makes no sense even to you. Whales are only a problem for you, because “messy adaptations” don’t fit in with your notion of an always-in-control God personally preprogramming or dabbling every major change (so that he can produce Homo sapiens' brain). It all makes perfect sense if intelligent cell communities keep looking for ways to survive and/or improve. (One would hardly expect them to find perfect answers to EVERY problem, which might also help to explain the 99% extinction!)
There is no proof that cell committees have the design skill to invent an advanced species. I firmly believe only God can do it. And the whales prove the point, considering the complex physiology required at each step.
dhw: I think we are close to agreement, but I would rephrase your comment: The need to survive is of prime importance as an evolutionary driving force. Survivability does not necessitate complexity, but enhanced survivability may result from successful attempts to improve, which may lead to greater complexity.
DAVID: Totally backward. Complexity occurs all throughout evolution, much of which turns out not to be improvements. You cannot deny humans are overly complex and that complexity is not necessary for individual survival. All through evolution species that survived eventually reached to point of the primate level, which is obviously the top level, and more complex than others. Birds are not apes in total complexity. Both survive as species so they are improved enough. Do you see that difference in concept?
dhw: I’m afraid I’m having great difficulty in finding any coherent line of argument here. I have said that survivability does not necessitate complexity, and you tell me complexity is not necessary for individual survival. Totally backward?
I'm still discussing species survival, not individual. Do you have a closed mind to that?
dhw: You say primates are top,and apes are more complex than birds but both have survived and have finished improving. Why is that the exact opposite of saying that enhanced survivability may result from attempts to improve, which may lead to greater complexity,
Only a more complex brain led to more complex human civilization. Complexity first.
dhw: e.g. a species improves survivability by inventing spears, and complexifies or enlarges its brain as a result?
That is your approach, not mine.
dhw: I can’t see any connection between the two “concepts”, let alone why one is “totally backward” from the other.
Your approach of 'push' is the reverse of mine, 'pull'.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
DAVID: There is no proof that cell committees have the design skill to invent an advanced species. I firmly believe only God can do it. And the whales prove the point, considering the complex physiology required at each step.
I have agreed over and over again that there is no proof, and that is why it remains a hypothesis, but unlike your own equally unproven hypothesis, it offers a coherent explanation of evolutionary history. I am aware of your firm belief that only God can design the weaverbird’s nest and the different stages of whale, neither of which have the remotest connection to his sole purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. But I’m afraid firm belief is not a very persuasive argument.
dhw: I think we are close to agreement, but I would rephrase your comment: The need to survive is of prime importance as an evolutionary driving force. Survivability does not necessitate complexity, but enhanced survivability may result from successful attempts to improve, which may lead to greater complexity.
DAVID: Totally backward. […]
dhw: I have said that survivability does not necessitate complexity, and you tell me complexity is not necessary for individual survival. Totally backward?
DAVID: I'm still discussing species survival, not individual. Do you have a closed mind to that?
And I keep pointing out that a species can only survive if individuals survive. Do you have a closed mind to that? The survivability of individuals and of their whole species does not necessitate complexity. Anything backward there?
dhw: You say primates are top,and apes are more complex than birds but both have survived and have finished improving. Why is that the exact opposite of saying that enhanced survivability may result from attempts to improve, which may lead to greater complexity,
DAVID: Only a more complex brain led to more complex human civilization. Complexity first.
Yes, it’s an on-going process. A concept that is not implemented won’t advance civilization, and so you are right to say the larger or more complex brain leads to the advance, though it cannot do so without the concept previously thought up by the smaller/less complex brain. The process goes on repeating itself, as new concepts arise (often building on earlier concepts), and implementation creates greater complexity both in the brain and in civilization. That doesn’t alter the fact that a dualist cannot claim that ideas come from the brain.
dhw: I can’t see any connection between the two “concepts”, let alone why one is “totally backward” from the other.
DAVID: Your approach of 'push' is the reverse of mine, 'pull'.
I don’t know what that has to do with birds not being apes “in total complexity” and both surviving as species “so they are improved enough”, or how your “pull” proves that survivability is not a major issue.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 07, 2018, 15:45 (2267 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: There is no proof that cell committees have the design skill to invent an advanced species. I firmly believe only God can do it. And the whales prove the point, considering the complex physiology required at each step.
dhw: I have agreed over and over again that there is no proof, and that is why it remains a hypothesis, but unlike your own equally unproven hypothesis, it offers a coherent explanation of evolutionary history. I am aware of your firm belief that only God can design the weaverbird’s nest and the different stages of whale, neither of which have the remotest connection to his sole purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. But I’m afraid firm belief is not a very persuasive argument.
That is why you are agnostic.
dhw: And I keep pointing out that a species can only survive if individuals survive. Do you have a closed mind to that? The survivability of individuals and of their whole species does not necessitate complexity. Anything backward there?
Not my point: I originally brought up the point that sapiens lived at a survival level even though their new brain allowed for much more and there was a delay until they discovered how to use it.
dhw: You say primates are top,and apes are more complex than birds but both have survived and have finished improving. Why is that the exact opposite of saying that enhanced survivability may result from attempts to improve, which may lead to greater complexity,
DAVID: Only a more complex brain led to more complex human civilization. Complexity first.
dhw: Yes, it’s an on-going process. A concept that is not implemented won’t advance civilization, and so you are right to say the larger or more complex brain leads to the advance, though it cannot do so without the concept previously thought up by the smaller/less complex brain.
You state that as a fact. My view is the smaller brail was incapable of the concept. Only the larger brain had both concept and implementation.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
DAVID: There is no proof that cell committees have the design skill to invent an advanced species. I firmly believe only God can do it. And the whales prove the point, considering the complex physiology required at each step.
dhw: I have agreed over and over again that there is no proof, and that is why it remains a hypothesis, but unlike your own equally unproven hypothesis, it offers a coherent explanation of evolutionary history. I am aware of your firm belief that only God can design the weaverbird’s nest and the different stages of whale, neither of which have the remotest connection to his sole purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens. But I’m afraid firm belief is not a very persuasive argument.
DAVID: That is why you are agnostic.
My agnosticism is irrelevant. Some atheists also have a firm belief in the ability of chance to produce the complexities of living organisms. Do you regard their firm belief as a persuasive argument?
dhw: And I keep pointing out that a species can only survive if individuals survive. Do you have a closed mind to that? The survivability of individuals and of their whole species does not necessitate complexity. Anything backward there?
DAVID: Not my point: I originally brought up the point that sapiens lived at a survival level even though their new brain allowed for much more and there was a delay until they discovered how to use it.
Dealt with several times. My comment was in response to: “I’m still discussing species survival, not individual. Do you have a closed mind to that?” But I’m glad you have now dropped that unproductive theme.
DAVID: Only a more complex brain led to more complex human civilization. Complexity first.
dhw: Yes, it’s an on-going process. A concept that is not implemented won’t advance civilization, and so you are right to say the larger or more complex brain leads to the advance, though it cannot do so without the concept previously thought up by the smaller/less complex brain.
DAVID: You state that as a fact. My view is the smaller brail was incapable of the concept. Only the larger brain had both concept and implementation.
Sorry, I should keep repeating that it is my hypothesis. You keep harping on about size, and the question actually boils down to whether ideas are the product of the dualist’s soul or his brain. If you believe it is the soul that thinks/remembers/conceptualizes (dualism), clearly the size of the brain makes no difference except to the potential for implementation. If you believe the soul cannot think/remember/conceptualize without a functioning brain (as you keep saying on the “big brain evolution” thread), and cannot think bigger without a bigger brain, you are a materialist. Please make up your mind.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Thursday, February 08, 2018, 18:36 (2266 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, February 08, 2018, 19:04
DAVID: You state that as a fact. My view is the smaller brain was incapable of the concept. Only the larger brain had both concept and implementation.dhw: Sorry, I should keep repeating that it is my hypothesis. You keep harping on about size, and the question actually boils down to whether ideas are the product of the dualist’s soul or his brain. If you believe it is the soul that thinks/remembers/conceptualizes (dualism), clearly the size of the brain makes no difference except to the potential for implementation. If you believe the soul cannot think/remember/conceptualize without a functioning brain (as you keep saying on the “big brain evolution” thread), and cannot think bigger without a bigger brain, you are a materialist. Please make up your mind.
My mind has a concept about the relationship of brain and s/s/c you do not seem to recognize. I know when I open up my mind to thought. There is a temporal progression from no thought to thinking. I can be in a reverie without productive thought, which indicates my control. I am material and I can only approach my s/s/c when I start to think. I can only use my brain to make contact with my s/s/c. I=s s/s/c. You and I cannot get around the material brain is the gateway to the s/s/c. And I am convinced a more complex cortex must be present to allow the s/s/c to perform more complex thinking. Every development in the evolution of Homo shows us that. Complex cortex always results in more complex artifacts. Your hypothesis that a small brain can have a concept, but must enlarge to implement it has no basis in what we know about Homo evolution. Our discussion always deals with a material brain and an immaterial s/s/c, dual entities. Materialism always has to part of the discussion. Can you show me complete separation which you seem to imply?
NDE's show us the s/s/c can be separate from the brain and be entirely functional, and when reattached to the brain transmit all of its newly received information. This tells me there are two separate entities, brain and s/s/c which work together when attached. This also tells me the brain can receive information, can transmit information which is more than functional implementation, which you imply is all the brain does. It modifies to help with handling new concepts. Can you describe what you think implementation entails?
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Sunday, October 30, 2016, 22:35 (2732 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: ... but I have said over and over again that the two purposes “related to evolution” that are clear to me are survival and improvement.
And I have emphasized a drive to complexity as the main force in evolution. This article from MIT professors agrees:
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/6/3/25/htm
Abstract: "Life on Earth provides a unique biological record from single-cell microbes to technologically intelligent life forms. Our evolution is marked by several major steps or innovations along a path of increasing complexity from microbes to space-faring humans. Here we identify various major key innovations, and use an analytical toolset consisting of a set of models to analyse how likely each key innovation is to occur. Our conclusion is that once the origin of life is accomplished, most of the key innovations can occur rather readily. The conclusion for other worlds is that if the origin of life can occur rather easily, we should live in a cosmic zoo, On the other hand, if the origin of life is rare, then we might live in a rather empty universe.
***
" In this paper, we analyse the transitions or key innovations within a theoretical framework that allows us to ask whether the evolution of a technology-using species on Earth is an extremely unlikely event, or whether complex, smart and potentially technological beings are highly likely to evolve on an habitable planet in the time available to it...No evidence of technologically advanced life other than human life has been found, which suggests that such technologically advanced life occurs only on a minor fraction of all habitable planets.
"Our argument rather is that the evolution of complex life is likely. This rests on two arguments. The first is that the functions found in complex organisms have evolved multiple times, an argument we will elaborate in the bulk of this paper. The second is what Gould calls “Diffusion from the Wall”. There is a limit of complexity below which life cannot function... From that simple Last Common Ancestor (LCA), life can evolve genetic, morphological, developmental or behavioural complexity in one of three directions. It can become simpler, it can remain the same, or it can become more complex. If the LCA was a “minimal cell” then it cannot become simpler. However it can become more complex. Such more complex life can also evolve to become simpler or more complex. With time, the most complex life (however complexity is defined) is therefore likely to become more complex. While evolution of simpler forms from complex ones is common, and while the “average complexity” of the biosphere might be unchanged (if it is meaningful at all), the most complex organisms are likely to be more complex.
***
"Our argument rather is that the evolution of complex life is likely. This rests on two arguments. The first is that the functions found in complex organisms have evolved multiple times, an argument we will elaborate in the bulk of this paper. The second is what Gould calls “Diffusion from the Wall”. There is a limit of complexity below which life cannot function (see e.g., [15,16]). It seems plausible that life started as a simple organism, close to this “wall” of minimum complexity. From that simple Last Common Ancestor (LCA), life can evolve genetic, morphological, developmental or behavioural complexity in one of three directions. It can become simpler, it can remain the same, or it can become more complex. If the LCA was a “minimal cell” then it cannot become simpler. However it can become more complex. Such more complex life can also evolve to become simpler or more complex. With time, the most complex life (however complexity is defined) is therefore likely to become more complex. While evolution of simpler forms from complex ones is common, and while the “average complexity” of the biosphere might be unchanged (if it is meaningful at all), the most complex organisms are likely to be more complex.
"Our hypothesis is that the evolution of complex life is highly likely in any stable, sufficiently extensive environment where there is life. By “complex life” we are specifically interested in obligate multicellular life-forms, particularly members of the kingdoms Plantae (plants), Fungi, and Animalia (animals). If the Great Filter is at the origin of life, we live in a relatively empty universe, but if the origin of life is common, we live in a Cosmic Zoo where such complex life is abundant.
***
" All terrestrial life shares the same underlying biochemistry: is this because this biochemistry was the first to appear that our biochemistry is the best fitted (and so independent origins of life converged on it), or that it is the frozen result of an extremely unlikely event.
***
".. we examined the key innovations of life on Earth, and tested them for multiple occurrences... we find that, with the exception of the origin of life and the origin of technological intelligence, we can favour the Critical Path model or the Many Paths model in most cases. The origin of oxygenesis, may be a Many Paths process, and we favour that interpretation, but may also be Random Walk events. This implies that in any world where life has arisen and sufficient energy flux exists, we are confident that we will find complex, animal-like life."
Comment: Extremly long article in which they give many examples of why they think complexity is inevitable. They do not explain the origin of life or consciousness.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
dhw: ... but I have said over and over again that the two purposes “related to evolution” that are clear to me are survival and improvement.
DAVID: And I have emphasized a drive to complexity as the main force in evolution.
I regard innovations such as the senses, sexual reproduction, brains etc. as improvements. You may disagree. Of course such things involve greater complexity. However, I have no idea why your God or organisms themselves should create complexity for no reason other than complexity.
DAVID: This article from MIT professors agrees:
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/6/3/25/htm
QUOTE: It seems plausible that life started as a simple organism, close to this “wall” of minimum complexity. From that simple Last Common Ancestor (LCA), life can evolve genetic, morphological, developmental or behavioural complexity in one of three directions. It can become simpler, it can remain the same, or it can become more complex. If the LCA was a “minimal cell” then it cannot become simpler. However it can become more complex. Such more complex life can also evolve to become simpler or more complex. With time, the most complex life (however complexity is defined) is therefore likely to become more complex. While evolution of simpler forms from complex ones is common, and while the “average complexity” of the biosphere might be unchanged (if it is meaningful at all), the most complex organisms are likely to be more complex.
Brilliant! Should be published in an anthology of parodies.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Monday, October 31, 2016, 17:10 (2731 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: ... but I have said over and over again that the two purposes “related to evolution” that are clear to me are survival and improvement.
DAVID: And I have emphasized a drive to complexity as the main force in evolution.
dhw: I regard innovations such as the senses, sexual reproduction, brains etc. as improvements. You may disagree. Of course such things involve greater complexity. However, I have no idea why your God or organisms themselves should create complexity for no reason other than complexity.
Answer, the only road to humans is increasing complexity.
DAVID: This article from MIT professors agrees:
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/6/3/25/htmQUOTE: It seems plausible that life started as a simple organism, close to this “wall” of minimum complexity. From that simple Last Common Ancestor (LCA), life can evolve genetic, morphological, developmental or behavioural complexity in one of three directions. It can become simpler, it can remain the same, or it can become more complex. If the LCA was a “minimal cell” then it cannot become simpler. However it can become more complex. Such more complex life can also evolve to become simpler or more complex. With time, the most complex life (however complexity is defined) is therefore likely to become more complex. While evolution of simpler forms from complex ones is common, and while the “average complexity” of the biosphere might be unchanged (if it is meaningful at all), the most complex organisms are likely to be more complex.
dhw: Brilliant! Should be published in an anthology of parodies.
The reasonable part is that bacteria could not devolve to anything simpler and live. They are paraphrasing Gould.
More about how evolution works: more on patterns
by David Turell , Sunday, October 30, 2016, 23:06 (2732 days ago) @ David Turell
This article describes patterns in gene relationships:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161025-pairwise-gene-removal-reveals-genetic-structure/
"Boone, Andrews and a large team of collaborators have published in Science a sprawling report on the nearly two-decade-long set of experiments. In all, they found 550,000 pairs that, when removed, result in sickness or death. This network of genetic connections reveals a previously hidden scaffolding that underlies the operation of the cell. “The complete picture,” Boone said, “clearly shows a beautiful hierarchical structure.”
***
"For those of us who are not scientists, the research also provides an interesting reminder that the cell is not as simple as it might seem. Just because a gene is not one of the “essential” 1,200 does not mean it’s unimportant. It simply means that evolution has built many overlapping systems into the cell so that if one part goes, the whole thing doesn’t fall apart.
"For example, the cell has a couple of different pathways that it can use to repair DNA. “Neither one is essential,” said Chad Myers, a computational biologist at the University of Minnesota who is a lead author of the new paper. But if you knock a single gene out in both of those pathways at the same time, “you’ll kill the cell,” he said. With both of those options for DNA repair gone, the cell can’t keep going.
***
"Botstein said, “flexibility is the issue in survival — the ability to switch between circumstances that are good, or bad, or whatever, and not die.” Evolution has honed yeast to be ready for many kinds of situations, from the warm surface of a Napa Valley grape to the desert where a bird, having consumed the grape, might deposit it inside its droppings. If the experiments were repeated in myriad other circumstances, the removal of other combinations of genes would be deadly. Those experiments would reveal overlapping groups of genes that are essential for each of these situations, intimating the immense permutations that life is prepared for.
"The yeast experiments... make clear that the cell is a system where a handful of small changes can add up to a problem, though none of the individual alterations are harmful in and of themselves.
***
"In 2013, Claire Moore, a biochemist at Tufts University, received an email from Boone.
***
"Moore was vaguely aware of Boone’s work, but didn’t know him personally. “I get this email out of the blue,” she recalled. It said that Boone’s team had identified a gene that might be involved in polyadenylation. Could she check it out for them? “That was a surprise to me,” she said, “because I thought that we had identified all the proteins that did this.”
"But Boone, Andrews and their collaborators had found that this gene, one of the essential, still-mysterious six, had very strong connections with those involved in polyadenylation. It was a simple matter for Moore to see whether knocking it out would interfere with the process in her yeast. And, lo and behold, it did. They had identified the mysterious gene’s function, merely by looking at a database of its relationships, and seeing what happened in the lab.
"Moore, whose findings about the new polyadenylation gene appear in the Science paper, said that she thinks her experience shows the value of the network approach. “For us it’s opened up a whole new direction for the lab,” she said. “I don’t think we would have ever stumbled across it [otherwise].'”
Comment: This arrangement of patterns of gene relationships shows how intricately the genome is constructed to aid in survivability. Note the antibiotic study in which bacteria found a way to overcome the antibiotic. It is very difficult to see how chance evolution developed this intricacy. It looks planned to me. This fits with Wagner's finding of patterns that allow for innovation.
More about how evolution works: more on patterns
by David Turell , Friday, March 09, 2018, 15:26 (2237 days ago) @ David Turell
A study of stick spiders in Hawaii finds that similar color patterns appear on different islands with different environmental conditions, as a type of evolutionary convergence:
https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/52032/title/Hawaiian-Spiders-on-...
"The Hawaiian stick spider has evolved the same three color morphs on multiple different islands in parallel, according to research led by biologists at the University of California, Berkeley. The team’s findings, published today (March 8) in Current Biology, provide a rare example of evolution producing the same outcome multiple times and could throw light on the factors constraining evolutionary change.
“'The possibility that whole communities of these spiders have evolved convergently is certainly exciting,” Ambika Kamath, a behavioral ecologist at the University of California at Santa Barbara who didn’t take part in the study, tells The Atlantic. She adds that the study provides insight into the “deterministic processes that shape the diversity of life.”
To study the stick spider’s biological past, evolutionary ecologist Rosemary Gillespie of UC Berkeley and her colleagues collected samples of the most prominent color morphs—each camouflaged for a different habitat—on Hawaii’s four largest islands. “You’ve got this dark one that lives in rocks or in bark, a shiny and reflective gold one that lives under leaves, and this one that's a matte white, completely white, that lives on lichen,” Gillespie explains in a statement.
"Yet when the researchers sequenced the arachnids’ DNA, they discovered that each morph showed more in common with different color morphs from the same island than with the same color morph from different islands. The phylogenetic tree created using the data suggests that the same color patterns must have evolved multiple times as the stick spiders spread to new habitats.
“'They arrive on an island, and boom! You get independent evolution to the same set of forms,” Gillespie says in the statement. “Most radiations just don’t do this,” she adds—although her team has previously reported a similar pattern of convergent evolution in another group of spiders in Hawaii, the spiny-legged Tetragnatha. “Now we’re thinking about why it’s only in these kinds of organisms that you get this sort of rapid and repeated evolution.”
"One possibility raised in the paper is that predation has constrained the range of color options available to this camouflaged species. The team has yet to identify the genes responsible for the color changes in the spiders, but an understanding of this process could add insight into the role of predation on evolution in prey, Dolph Schluter, an evolutionary biologist at the University of British Columbia in Canada, who was not involved in the study, tells Science. “This underscores how a rich environment having few other species spurs rapid evolution in the few [organisms] that by chance managed to get there.'”
Comment: This is certainly an evidence of patterns of control in evolution, gain providing evidence that God guided evolution using patterns of control. Tony and I discussed this with a Biblical quote from Genesis, making them in their own kind. Thursday, March 08, 2018, 19:15
More about how evolution works: more on patterns
by David Turell , Monday, March 12, 2018, 13:57 (2234 days ago) @ David Turell
Another take on the Hawaiian spiders that hopped island to island and developed the same coloration each time:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/colonising-spiders-evolve-the-same-three-forms-every...
"Remarkably, Gillespie and her international team, using a mixture of genetic analysis and software modelling, have discovered that the stick spiders constantly re-evolve these same three forms, known as ecomorphs, in a rare example of repeated and predictable convergent evolution.
***
"As, say, a dark species moved to a newer island, it would quickly evolve into three new species, each displaying one of the three ecomorphs. As other Ariamnes species arrived they too would evolve into the three ecomorphs, leaving a pattern of bewildering relations between them. Species that look the same may well be distantly related, while species exhibiting different forms might be close evolutionary kin.
"Importantly, these three forms remain constant.
“'They don't evolve to be orange or striped. There isn't any additional diversification,” says Gillespie.
"This is incredibly rare, only occurring in a lizard species from the Caribbean and, interestingly, another spider species from Hawaii.
"The researchers think a unique set of circumstances bring about this evolutionary déjà vu – a lack of diversity in predators, a limited set of genetics with a possible preprogramed DNA switch to facilitate the emergence of the three ecomorphs, a free-living lifestyle, and an environment that rewards only certain types of camouflage, all seem to contribute. (my bold)
"While the exact reasons remain unclear, Gillespie and her team hope that further research into the similarities within this select group of organisms that evolve the same forms over and again will “provide insight into what elements of evolution are predictable, and under which circumstances we expect evolution to be predictable and under which we do not'”.
Comment: Note the bold. Could pre-programming be the key? I've suggested this as God's way of managing evolution.
More about how evolution works: more on patterns
QUOTE: "The researchers think a unique set of circumstances bring about this evolutionary déjà vu – a lack of diversity in predators, a limited set of genetics with a possible preprogramed DNA switch to facilitate the emergence of the three ecomorphs, a free-living lifestyle, and an environment that rewards only certain types of camouflage, all seem to contribute. (David's bold)
"While the exact reasons remain unclear, Gillespie and her team hope that further research into the similarities within this select group of organisms that evolve the same forms over and again will “provide insight into what elements of evolution are predictable, and under which circumstances we expect evolution to be predictable and under which we do not'”.
DAVID's comment: Note the bold. Could pre-programming be the key? I've suggested this as God's way of managing evolution.
Yes indeed you have. You are, I presume, suggesting that 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed the first cells to make sure a certain type of spider would use three forms of camouflage on the Hawaiian islands in order to provide energy to keep life going until he could fulfil his sole purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens.
I wonder if perhaps these three forms have proved adequate to ensure the spiders’ survival, and so they don’t need to evolve anything different. And I wonder if this isn’t the basis of convergence – that organisms with similar problems find similar solutions. And I wonder what would happen if the vegetation turned orange with pink stripes. My prediction would be that if it did, either the spiders would adapt and survive, or they would fail to adapt and would perish. I shall apply for a grant to develop this theory.
More about how evolution works: more on patterns
by David Turell , Tuesday, March 13, 2018, 15:20 (2233 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID's comment: Note the bold. Could pre-programming be the key? I've suggested this as God's way of managing evolution.
dhw: Yes indeed you have. You are, I presume, suggesting that 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed the first cells to make sure a certain type of spider would use three forms of camouflage on the Hawaiian islands in order to provide energy to keep life going until he could fulfil his sole purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens.
I wonder if perhaps these three forms have proved adequate to ensure the spiders’ survival, and so they don’t need to evolve anything different. And I wonder if this isn’t the basis of convergence – that organisms with similar problems find similar solutions. And I wonder what would happen if the vegetation turned orange with pink stripes. My prediction would be that if it did, either the spiders would adapt and survive, or they would fail to adapt and would perish. I shall apply for a grant to develop this theory.
And it's all because God gave them pattern to follow for adaptation.That is what convergence is as a phenomenon in evolution.
More about how evolution works: more on patterns
by David Turell , Thursday, November 08, 2018, 15:02 (1993 days ago) @ David Turell
Turing equations show another mathematical pattern in evolution:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/alan-turing-s-equations-explain-shark-skin
"Alan Turing’s explanation for how modern animals developed their scales, feathers and hair may have even broader application.
"New research suggests the famous mathematician’s famous reaction-diffusion (RD) model also explains the development of the shark’s tooth-line skin.
"That’s significant, according to zoologist Rory Cooper from the University of Sheffield, UK, because while previous research has found support for RD patterning in four-legged animals, its role in earlier-diverging lineages has not been clear.
"Widely known simply as the Turing Model, RD is a theoretical construct used to explain self-regulated pattern formation in the developing animal embryo.
"The model, Cooper says, explains the progression of epithelial appendages – external structures such as hair, feathers, scales, spines and teeth – over at least 450 million years, a timeframe that spans the evolution of vertebrates.
"These structures, he says, all possess similar developmental positioning in relation to one another because they grow from a common foundation – the thickened areas of the epithelium known as placodes.
"In their recent research, described in a paper published in Science Advances, Cooper and colleagues from the UK and the US studied the small-spotted catshark (Scyliorhinus canicula) at about 80 days post-fertilisation, using RD modelling and gene expression analysis.
"The modelling showed that dorsal denticle rows acted as “initiator” rows, triggering the patterning of surrounding tooth-like skin.
"The researchers compared the patterning of shark denticles to chick feathers, in which RD modelling is at play, by examining the expression of a protein called beta-catenin that is an early regulator of chick epithelial placode signalling – and determined a similarity.
"The shark lateral line expressed the protein soon before denticle patterning began, a comparable timeline to feather patterning.
"They then used the RD model to explain the diversity of denticle patterning in other ancient cartilaginous fishes – the thornback skate (Raja clavate) and the little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) – and suggest it may have aided the evolution of such functions as protective armour, hydrodynamic drag reduction, feeding and communication
“'We propose that a diverse range of vertebrate appendages, from shark denticles to avian feathers and mammalian hair, use this ancient and conserved system, with slight genetic modulation accounting for broad variations in patterning,” the researchers conclude."
Comment: Perhaps the diversity is not as diverse as it appears. More evidence patterns guide evolution. Easy to imagine a designer would set up patterns in advance. It helps explain convergence.
More about how evolution works: more on patterns
QUOTE: "Widely known simply as the Turing Model, RD is a theoretical construct used to explain self-regulated pattern formation in the developing animal embryo.
"The model, Cooper says, explains the progression of epithelial appendages – external structures such as hair, feathers, scales, spines and teeth – over at least 450 million years, a timeframe that spans the evolution of vertebrates.
"These structures, he says, all possess similar developmental positioning in relation to one another because they grow from a common foundation – the thickened areas of the epithelium known as placodes.
DAVID’s comment: Perhaps the diversity is not as diverse as it appears. More evidence patterns guide evolution. Easy to imagine a designer would set up patterns in advance. It helps explain convergence.
The article clearly illustrates common descent. I find it easy to imagine self-regulating cells/cell communities combining to form patterns and, as conditions change, changing their patterns in an ongoing process of variation and innovation. I don’t see patterns “guiding” evolution, but evolution resulting from organisms creating and varying patterns. Convergence simply means that organisms develop similar patterns to deal with similar conditions. What I find difficult to imagine is organisms developing (or in your hypothesis being given) new patterns in advance of the conditions that require or allow for change.
More about how evolution works: more on patterns
by David Turell , Friday, November 09, 2018, 15:04 (1992 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "Widely known simply as the Turing Model, RD is a theoretical construct used to explain self-regulated pattern formation in the developing animal embryo.
"The model, Cooper says, explains the progression of epithelial appendages – external structures such as hair, feathers, scales, spines and teeth – over at least 450 million years, a timeframe that spans the evolution of vertebrates.
"These structures, he says, all possess similar developmental positioning in relation to one another because they grow from a common foundation – the thickened areas of the epithelium known as placodes.
DAVID’s comment: Perhaps the diversity is not as diverse as it appears. More evidence patterns guide evolution. Easy to imagine a designer would set up patterns in advance. It helps explain convergence.
dhw: The article clearly illustrates common descent. I find it easy to imagine self-regulating cells/cell communities combining to form patterns and, as conditions change, changing their patterns in an ongoing process of variation and innovation. I don’t see patterns “guiding” evolution, but evolution resulting from organisms creating and varying patterns. Convergence simply means that organisms develop similar patterns to deal with similar conditions. What I find difficult to imagine is organisms developing (or in your hypothesis being given) new patterns in advance of the conditions that require or allow for change.
It may be hard for you to imagine, but imagination is not scientific evidence. I've presented many articles on patterns that are found, like this one.
More about how evolution works: more on patterns
QUOTE: "Widely known simply as the Turing Model, RD is a theoretical construct used to explain self-regulated pattern formation in the developing animal embryo.
"The model, Cooper says, explains the progression of epithelial appendages – external structures such as hair, feathers, scales, spines and teeth – over at least 450 million years, a timeframe that spans the evolution of vertebrates.
"These structures, he says, all possess similar developmental positioning in relation to one another because they grow from a common foundation – the thickened areas of the epithelium known as placodes.
DAVID’s comment: Perhaps the diversity is not as diverse as it appears. More evidence patterns guide evolution. Easy to imagine a designer would set up patterns in advance. It helps explain convergence. (dhw’s bold).
dhw: The article clearly illustrates common descent. I find it easy to imagine self-regulating cells/cell communities combining to form patterns and, as conditions change, changing their patterns in an ongoing process of variation and innovation. I don’t see patterns “guiding” evolution, but evolution resulting from organisms creating and varying patterns. Convergence simply means that organisms develop similar patterns to deal with similar conditions. What I find difficult to imagine is organisms developing (or in your hypothesis being given) new patterns in advance of the conditions that require or allow for change.
DAVID: It may be hard for you to imagine, but imagination is not scientific evidence. I've presented many articles on patterns that are found, like this one.
A designer setting up patterns in advance may be easy for you to imagine (see my bold), but your imagination is not scientific evidence. I am not questioning the existence of patterns. I am questioning your hypothetical explanation of them, and have offered an alternative which seems to me more logical.
More about how evolution works: more on patterns
by David Turell , Saturday, November 10, 2018, 14:58 (1991 days ago) @ dhw
QUOTE: "Widely known simply as the Turing Model, RD is a theoretical construct used to explain self-regulated pattern formation in the developing animal embryo.
"The model, Cooper says, explains the progression of epithelial appendages – external structures such as hair, feathers, scales, spines and teeth – over at least 450 million years, a timeframe that spans the evolution of vertebrates.
"These structures, he says, all possess similar developmental positioning in relation to one another because they grow from a common foundation – the thickened areas of the epithelium known as placodes.DAVID’s comment: Perhaps the diversity is not as diverse as it appears. More evidence patterns guide evolution. Easy to imagine a designer would set up patterns in advance. It helps explain convergence. (dhw’s bold).
dhw: The article clearly illustrates common descent. I find it easy to imagine self-regulating cells/cell communities combining to form patterns and, as conditions change, changing their patterns in an ongoing process of variation and innovation. I don’t see patterns “guiding” evolution, but evolution resulting from organisms creating and varying patterns. Convergence simply means that organisms develop similar patterns to deal with similar conditions. What I find difficult to imagine is organisms developing (or in your hypothesis being given) new patterns in advance of the conditions that require or allow for change.
DAVID: It may be hard for you to imagine, but imagination is not scientific evidence. I've presented many articles on patterns that are found, like this one.
dhw: A designer setting up patterns in advance may be easy for you to imagine (see my bold), but your imagination is not scientific evidence. I am not questioning the existence of patterns. I am questioning your hypothetical explanation of them, and have offered an alternative which seems to me more logical.
I agree this pattern, as well as others, support common descent, going back 450 million years. As for design, it is set in faith at this point. We reach different logical results.
More about how evolution works: multicellularity
by David Turell , Thursday, November 03, 2016, 00:15 (2729 days ago) @ David Turell
Massimo Pigliucci takes on Wagner and disagrees with his Platonic approach:
http://nautil.us/blog/the-neo_platonic-argument-for-evolution-couldnt-be-more-wrong
"Just read the last two sentences of his 2014 book, Arrival of the Fittest: How Nature Innovates. They come in an epilogue, titled “Plato’s Cave.” “We are shedding new light on one of the most durable and fascinating subjects in all of philosophy,” he writes. “And we learn that life’s creativity draws from a source that is older than life, and perhaps older than time.” (Italics mine.) The source of this creativity, Wagner argues, is “nature’s libraries.” It’s a metaphor for an abstract storehouse of information that we can never physically encounter. “These libraries and texts,” he writes, “are concepts, mathematical concepts, touchable only by the mind’s eye.” This is Platonism. Are conceptual truths discovered, or invented? Platonists believe the former, and “Platonism,” Wagner writes, “has the upper hand in this debate.”
***
"Wagner begins to veer off the main course of modern biology when he talks about the “essence” of species, which he links directly to Platonism: “A systematist’s task”—of organizing biological forms in nested, highly branching trees, or clades—“might be daunting, but it becomes manageable if each species is distinguished by its own Platonic essence,” he writes. “For example, a legless body and flexible jaws might be part of a snake’s essence, different from that of other reptiles. Indeed, the essence really is the species in the world of Platonists. To be a snake is nothing other than to be an instance of the form of the snake.”
"No, definitely not. Modern biology has long since rejected any talk of “essence.” Indeed, Darwin was what we might call a species anti-realist: He thought species are arbitrary boundaries drawn by humans for their own convenience, not reflective of any deeper metaphysical reality. Second, no, snakes cannot reasonably be thought of as “nothing other than an instance of the Form of the snake.” Not only is that idea scientifically inert (how do we study these Forms? Where are they?), it is also a way of seeing things that is in serious tension with the whole concept of evolution.
***
"Who knows what future evolution has in store for the descendants of today’s snakes. To say that what we see now somehow represents the Platonic terminus of an evolutionary process is entirely groundless.
***
" Wagner insists that Plato will have the last word—we just need to dig deeper. He quotes the 1905 biologist Hugo De Vries, one of the re-discoverers of the work of Mendel, who established genetics and was skeptical of Darwin. De Vries famously said: “Natural selection can explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.”
***
"The question Wagner believes he’s answered is: “Since mutation is random, how does natural selection ‘know’ how to find its way in the very, very large library of possible forms?” As he says: “Without these pathways of synonymous texts, these sets of genes that express precisely the same function in ever-shifting sequences of letters, it would not be possible to keep finding new innovations via random mutation. Evolution would not work.”
"Yes it would! Natural selection does the work of “walking” a population through the library, and it is the combination of a random process (mutation) and a non-random one (selection) that yields evolutionary change. But the library doesn’t exist before natural selection “walks” through it. The analogy is misleading: It is better to think of a library that is created (and partially destroyed) moment by moment as life evolves. There is no mystery here, and there hasn’t been for about a century. Thinking in terms of libraries and Platonic Forms is simply not helpful to the biologist. (my bold)
***
"What does it mean for an abstract concept, or a possibility, to “exist”? These are the very same questions faced by mathematical Platonists, and biological Platonism—like its mathematical counterpart—simply seems to conjure up a problem where none existed before.
***
"In philosophy of science, we like to keep metaphysics to the necessary minimum, and Platonism simply multiplies ontologies gratuitously, without any payback in either philosophy or science."
Comment: Wagner may well by off on a wild tear, but Pigliucci's reliance on the power of natural selection is also off the rails. Natural selections sits passively waiting for innovation. We still don't know how that happens, or why it happens, if there is no need for innovation as in the jump from bacteria to multicellularity.
how evolution works: learning theory
by David Turell , Friday, December 18, 2015, 16:19 (3049 days ago) @ dhw
This paper supposes that 'evolution' somehow learns from the past so as to plan for the future. the appearance of design can be gotten rid of. Whew!-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151218085616.htm-"Professor Richard Watson says new research shows that evolution is able to learn from previous experience, which could provide a better explanation of how evolution by natural selection produces such apparently intelligent designs.-"By unifying the theory of evolution (which shows how random variation and selection is sufficient to provide incremental adaptation) with learning theories (which show how incremental adaptation is sufficient for a system to exhibit intelligent behaviour), this research shows that it is possible for evolution to exhibit some of the same intelligent behaviours as learning systems (including neural networks).-***-"Professor Watson says: "Darwin's theory of evolution describes the driving process, but learning theory is not just a different way of describing what Darwin already told us. It expands what we think evolution is capable of. It shows that natural selection is sufficient to produce significant features of intelligent problem-solving."-"For example, a key feature of intelligence is an ability to anticipate behaviours that that will lead to future benefits. Conventionally, evolution, being dependent on random variation, has been considered 'blind' or at least 'myopic' -- unable to exhibit such anticipation. But showing that evolving systems can learn from past experience means that evolution has the potential to anticipate what is needed to adapt to future environments in the same way that learning systems do.-"'When we look at the amazing, apparently intelligent designs that evolution produces, it takes some imagination to understand how random variation and selection produced them. Sure, given suitable variation and suitable selection (and we also need suitable inheritance) then we're fine. But can natural selection explain the suitability of its own processes? That self-referential notion is troubling to conventional evolutionary theory -- but easy in learning theory.-"'Learning theory enables us to formalise how evolution changes its own processes over evolutionary time. For example, by evolving the organisation of development that controls variation, the organisation of ecological interactions that control selection or the structure of reproductive relationships that control inheritance -- natural selection can change its own ability to evolve."-Comment: the sentence in bold shows the fallacy. Natural selection is presented as active! At least they see the inference for design.
how evolution works: learning theory
by David Turell , Monday, February 01, 2016, 05:42 (3005 days ago) @ David Turell
Another version of the same empty theory, evolution learning to be smarter:-https://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/why-scientists-now-think-biological-evolution-itself-is-intelligent/-"I don't think invoking a supernatural creator can ever be a scientifically useful explanation. But what about intelligence that isn't supernatural? Our new results, based on computer modelling, link evolutionary processes to the principles of learning and intelligent problem solving - without involving any higher powers. This suggests that, although evolution may have started off blind, with a couple of billion years of experience it has got smarter. "(my bold)-***-"In computer science we use algorithms, such as those modelling neural networks in the brain, to understand how learning works. Learning isn't intrinsically mysterious; we can get machines to do it with step by step algorithms. Such machine learning algorithms are a well-understood part of artificial intelligence. In a neural network, learning involves adjusting the connections between neurons (stronger or weaker) in the direction that maximises rewards. With simple methods like this it is possible to get neural networks to not just solve problems, but to get better at solving problems over time.-"But what about evolution, can it get better at evolving over time? The idea is known as the evolution of evolvability. Evolvability, simply the ability to evolve, depends on appropriate variation, selection and heredity - Darwin's cornerstones. Interestingly, all of these components can be altered by past evolution, meaning past evolution can change the way that future evolution operates."-Comment: Whew! Garbage in, garbage out. Gobbledygook!
how evolution works: learning theory
DAVID: Another version of the same empty theory, evolution learning to be smarter:-https://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/why-scientists-now-think-biological-evolution-itself-i...-QUOTE: "I don't think invoking a supernatural creator can ever be a scientifically useful explanation. But what about intelligence that isn't supernatural? Our new results, based on computer modelling"(David's bold), link evolutionary processes to the principles of learning and intelligent problem solving - without involving any higher powers. This suggests that, although evolution may have started off blind, with a couple of billion years of experience it has got smarter.” (My bold)-David's comment: Whew! Garbage in, garbage out. Gobbledygook!-Yes and no. For me this is another instance of language being used misleadingly and confusingly. I have cut the rest of the article, because this paragraph contains the point I wish to make. Evolution can't get smarter. Evolution has no intelligence - it is simply a word describing a process which takes place within organisms, and only organisms can get smarter. Once you focus on intelligence and the organisms themselves, it makes sense. With a couple of billion years' experience, cell communities (organisms) have got smarter, and you don't need any higher powers to teach them. But ...Big But...'BUT' IN BLOCK CAPITALS...that still doesn't explain where the intelligence came from in the first place. In other words, you don't need God to explain Chapter 2 of evolution if you accept that intelligent organisms can learn and solve problems. BUT Chapter 1 contains the still unsolved mystery of origins.
how evolution works: learning theory
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 02, 2016, 01:12 (3004 days ago) @ dhw
> David's comment: Whew! Garbage in, garbage out. Gobbledygook! > > dhw: Yes and no. For me this is another instance of language being used misleadingly and confusingly. I have cut the rest of the article, because this paragraph contains the point I wish to make. Evolution can't get smarter. Evolution has no intelligence - it is simply a word describing a process which takes place within organisms, and only organisms can get smarter. Once you focus on intelligence and the organisms themselves, it makes sense. With a couple of billion years' experience, cell communities (organisms) have got smarter, and you don't need any higher powers to teach them. But ...Big But...'BUT' IN BLOCK CAPITALS...that still doesn't explain where the intelligence came from in the first place. In other words, you don't need God to explain Chapter 2 of evolution if you accept that intelligent organisms can learn and solve problems. BUT Chapter 1 contains the still unsolved mystery of origins.-Thank you for a great response. tis is the kind of junk that comes from too much grant money.
how evolution works:species not defined by genetics
by David Turell , Friday, November 25, 2016, 17:55 (2706 days ago) @ David Turell
Genetic studies of close species has not clarified the differences by offers some clues in narrow islands of difference in some cases:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140805-as-animals-mingle-a-baffling-genetic-barrier/
"The crows present a puzzling question to biologists, which gets to the heart of what it means to be a species: Given that hooded and carrion crows can mate and swap genes, how do the two groups maintain their individual identities? It’s as if you mixed red and yellow paint in a bucket but the two colors stubbornly refused to make orange.
" Wolf’s team has found that a surprisingly small chunk of DNA may hold the answer. A comparison of the carrion and hooded-crow genomes showed that the sequences are almost identical. Differences in just 82 DNA letters, out of a total of about 1.2 billion, appear to separate the two groups. Almost all of them are clustered in a small part of one chromosome. “Maybe just a few genes make a species what they are,” said Chris Jiggins, a biologist at the University of Cambridge in England, who was not involved in the study.
"The findings are striking because they suggest that just a few genes can keep two populations apart. Something within that segment of DNA stops black crows from mating with gray ones and vice versa, creating a tenuous mating barrier that could represent one of the earliest steps in the formation of new species. “They look very different and prefer to mate with their own kind, and all of that must be controlled by these narrow regions,” Jiggins said.
"Crows aren’t alone in their behavior. A deluge of genetic data in recent years suggests that interbreeding between species is more widespread than scientists ever imagined.
***
"The results — from studies of crows, butterflies, mosquitoes, fish and other organisms — suggest that the concept of species is even more muddled than we thought, and that genetic changes don’t always align with more visible ones, such as appearance. “In some cases, species have big morphological and behavioral changes with only a few genetic changes, and in other cases, there is lots of genetic change with few visible results,” said Matthew Hahn, a biologist at Indiana University.
***
"Many of these genes lie within the DNA segment that differs between carrion and hooded crows, suggesting that somehow the pigment genes that give the two groups their unique appearance are also keeping the species separate. But how?
"The most obvious explanation is that genes within this region also influence how the birds choose their mates. So-called assortative mating, in which animals that look similar are more likely to mate with each other, is one of the causes of new species development. Simple imprinting is one way to drive this phenomenon; if you were raised by a gray crow, you might prefer a gray crow as a mate.
"A second possibility ties together mate choice, color palette and vision. Maybe black crows can see other black crows more easily than they can see hooded crows and are thus more likely to mate with them, Wolf said. If the genes related to color and the genes involved in this aspect of vision sit near each other on the genome, they are more likely to be inherited together.
***
"Wolf’s crows aren’t the only set of interbreeding species that maintain their distinct identity. Across the Atlantic, two species of heliconius butterfly — the cydno longwing (Heliconius cydno) and the postman butterfly (H. melpomene) — reside in overlapping locales in South America and can mate with each other despite their different appearance, though it happens rarely.
***
"Genome analysis suggests that the two species are swapping genes at a surprising rate. But each species has genome segments unique to its own kind, which seem to persist despite the mixing of the rest of the genome. It’s as if these parts of the genome were made of oil and the rest of water; the water easily mixes but the oil remains in distinct droplets.
"Scientists have dubbed such regions of the genome “islands of speciation.” The persistence of such islands is a phenomenon that has been observed in a variety of organisms. Natural selection appears to put evolutionary pressure on these regions, which keeps both the genes and their corresponding traits distinct even in the face of interbreeding, while the rest of the genome can mix. Scientists theorize that these areas do the bulk of the work in maintaining individual species,
***
"Taken together, the research is beginning to create a picture of the process of speciation. It might start with a small region of the genome, likely housing genes linked to mating, as seems to be the case with crows. Then that region expands, and new islands harboring other divergent genes emerge, creating islands of speciation across the genome.
***
"So what does all this mean for the definition of species? Scientists still don’t have a definitive answer. Simply defining species based on genetics doesn’t solve the problem. As Wolf and others have shown, the answer depends on where in the genome you look. “It’s really hard to draw a boundary,” Wolf said. “Different parts of the genome tell you different things.'”
Comment: If an inventive mechanism exists limiting changes to a small area of DNA makes simplification sense.
More about how evolution works: fins to hands
by David Turell , Thursday, August 18, 2016, 15:41 (2805 days ago) @ dhw
The findings of this research logically support common descent:-http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/science/from-fins-into-hands-scientists-discover-a-deep-evolutionary-link.html?emc=edit_th_20160818&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=60788861&_r=0-"To the naked eye, there is not much similarity between a human hand and the fin of, say, a goldfish. A human hand is at the end of an arm. It has bones that develop from cartilage and contain blood vessels. This type of tissue is called endochondral bone.-"A goldfish grows just a tiny cluster of endochondral bones at the base of its fin. The rest of the fin is taken up by thin rays, which are made of an entirely different tissue called dermal bone. Dermal bone does not start out as cartilage and does not contain blood vessels.-"These differences have long puzzled scientists. The fossil record shows that we share a common aquatic ancestor with ray-finned fish that lived some 430 million years ago. Four-limbed creatures with spines — known as tetrapods — had evolved by 360 million years ago and went on to colonize dry land.-***-"When he is not digging for fossils, Dr. Shubin runs a lab at the University of Chicago, where he and his colleagues compare how tetrapods — mice, for example — and fish develop as embryos.-"Their embryos start out looking very similar, consisting of heads and tails and not much in between. Two pairs of buds then develop on their flanks. In fish, the buds grow into fins. In tetrapods, they become limbs.-***-"The new study was important because it revealed that the development of fins and limbs follows some of the same rules, said Matthew P. Harris, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School. In both cases, the Hox genes tell a clump of embryonic cells that they need to end up at the far end of an appendage. “The molecular address is the same,” said Dr. Harris, who was not involved in the study.-"In zebrafish, the cells that get that molecular address end up making dermal bone for fin rays. In tetrapods like us, the research indicates, the same cells produce endochondral bone in our hands and feet.-"The new discovery could help make sense of the intermediate fish with limb-like fins that Dr. Shubin and his colleagues have unearthed. These animals still used the molecular addresses their ancestors used. But when their cells reached their addresses, some of them became endochondral bone instead of fin rays. It may have been a simple matter to shift from one kind of tissue to another.-“'This is a dial that can be tuned (sic),” Dr. Shubin said."-Comment: Common descent is hard to deny with a study like this. God tunes the dial.