Evolution: A new theory (Introduction)
by David Turell , Friday, October 12, 2012, 01:33 (4427 days ago)
This is a strange new theory saying that single celled organisms when they clumped together, patterned themselves on inorganic material patterns:-"As Newman describes in his article, this new perspective provides natural interpretations for puzzling aspects of the early evolution of the animals, including the "explosive" rise of complex body forms between 540 and 640 million years ago and the failure to add new motifs since that time."-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121011141443.htm
Evolution: A new theory
by dhw, Saturday, October 13, 2012, 14:20 (4426 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: This is a strange new theory saying that single celled organisms when they clumped together, patterned themselves on inorganic material patterns:-"As Newman describes in his article, this new perspective provides natural interpretations for puzzling aspects of the early evolution of the animals, including the "explosive" rise of complex body forms between 540 and 640 million years ago and the failure to add new motifs since that time."-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121011141443.htm-Here is another quote: "These developmental motifs are strikingly similar to the forms assumed by nonliving condensed, chemically active, viscoelastic materials when they are organized by relevant physical forces and effects, although the mechanisms that generate the motifs in living embryos are typically much more complex. Newman proposes that the ancestors of the present-day animals acquired these forms when ancient single-celled organisms came to reside in multicellular clusters and physical processes relevant to matter at this new (for cellular life) spatial scale were immediately mobilized."-I've read this review a couple of times, and still don't know what it's getting at ... possibly the reviewer's fault, though probably mine. Twice in the above passage he refers to relevance without saying in what way these forces/processes are relevant. He concedes that living embryos are much more complex than nonliving materials, and so even if the "motifs" are strikingly similar, it's presumably the differences (or extra complexities) that make the difference, so to speak. Why, then, are similarities to nonliving forms important to our understanding of evolution and speciation? And would evolution have been possible if physical processes hadn't been mobilized? And how does all this explain the Cambrian Explosion? David, do you understand what it's all about? Or is not worth the effort to understand?
Evolution: A new theory
by David Turell , Saturday, October 13, 2012, 15:33 (4426 days ago) @ dhw
> I've read this review a couple of times, and still don't know what it's getting at ... possibly the reviewer's fault, though probably mine. Twice in the above passage he refers to relevance without saying in what way these forces/processes are relevant. He concedes that living embryos are much more complex than nonliving materials, and so even if the "motifs" are strikingly similar, it's presumably the differences (or extra complexities) that make the difference, so to speak. Why, then, are similarities to nonliving forms important to our understanding of evolution and speciation? And would evolution have been possible if physical processes hadn't been mobilized? And how does all this explain the Cambrian Explosion? David, do you understand what it's all about? Or is not worth the effort to understand?-A quote from the background press release:-"Evolution is commonly thought to take place opportunistically, by small steps, with each change persisting, or not, based on its functional advantage. Newman's alternative model is based on recent inferences about the genetics of the single-celled ancestors of the animals and, more surprisingly, the physics of "middle-scale" materials.-Animal bodies and the embryos that generate them exhibit an assortment of recurrent "morphological motifs" which, on the evidence of the fossil record, first appeared more than a half billion years ago. During embryonic development of present-day animals, cells arrange themselves into tissues having non-mixing layers and interior cavities. Embryos contain patterned arrangements of cell types with which they may form segments, exoskeletons and blood vessels. Developing bodies go on to fold, elongate, and extend appendages, and in some species, generate endoskeletons with repeating elements (e.g., the human hand). -These developmental motifs are strikingly similar to the forms assumed by nonliving condensed, chemically active, viscoelastic materials when they are organized by relevant physical forces and effects, although the mechanisms that generate the motifs in living embryos are typically much more complex. Newman proposes that the ancestors of the present-day animals acquired these forms when ancient single-celled organisms came to reside in multicellular clusters and physical processes relevant to matter at this new (for cellular life) spatial scale were immediately mobilized."-To summarize: this is quasi scientific philosophy stating that early forms, as the cells clustered mimicked the geology around them. Weird, but this is what gets published today. On the other hand, some weird proposals are really a road to true reality. How to prove? I have no idea.
Evolution: A new theory; rate of speciation
by David Turell , Thursday, May 07, 2015, 02:05 (3490 days ago) @ David Turell
Like a steady production line, not in bursts like punctuated equilibrium. This study does not take into account epigenetics, but relies on random mutation! Weird. the headline implies natural selection is active not passive. Also weird:-https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150505-a-surprise-for-evolution-in-giant-tree-of-life/-"This controversial proposal stems from efforts by Hedges and collaborators to build the world's most comprehensive tree of life — a chart plotting the connections among 50,000 species of Earth's vast menagerie. Their analysis suggests that speciation is essentially random. No matter what the life form — plant or animal, insect or mammal — it takes about 2 million years for a new species to form. Random genetic events, not natural selection, play the main role in speciation.-"One reason scientists are skeptical is that Hedges' clocklike pattern conflicts with the traditional picture of how evolution unfolds. “The classic view of evolution is that it happens in fits and starts,” Benton said. A change in the environment, such as a rise in temperatures after an ice age, might spark a burst of speciation as organisms adapt to their new surroundings. Alternatively, a single remarkable adaptation such as flight in the ancestors of birds or hair in mammals might trigger a massive expansion of animals with those characteristics.-"Hedges argues that while such bursts do occur, the vast majority of speciation is more prosaic and evenly timed. To start, two populations become separated, driven apart by geography or other factors. New species emerge every 2 million years, on average, in a metronomic rhythm tapped out by the random nature of genetic mutations. He likens the process to radioactive decay. It's impossible to predict when an individual radioactive nucleus will decay, but a clump of many atoms will decay at a highly predictable rate known as the material's half-life. Similarly, mutations strike the genome randomly, but over a long enough time the accumulation of mutations follows a pattern. “There is a kind of speciation clock ticking along,” Hedges said."-*****-"But Hedges contends that speciation and adaptation are two distinct processes, each proceeding along its own path. (A team led by Mark Pagel, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Reading in England, has made a similar proposal, though for different reasons.) According to Hedges' model, after about 2 million years the two groups of birds accrued so many random genetic differences that they became incompatible. It wasn't adaptive mutations that made it impossible for the birds to intermingle, but rather the accumulation of enough mutations overall, most of them neutral ones. Geographic isolation provided the necessary spark for speciation, but simple time drove the process to its conclusion."-He doesn't think adaptation leads to speciation! Weird.
Evolution: A new theory; rate of speciation
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, May 07, 2015, 09:18 (3490 days ago) @ David Turell
"One reason scientists are skeptical is that Hedges' clocklike pattern conflicts with the traditional picture of how evolution unfolds. “The classic view of evolution is that it happens in fits and starts,” Benton said. A change in the environment, such as a rise in temperatures after an ice age, might spark a burst of speciation as organisms adapt to their new surroundings. Alternatively, a single remarkable adaptation such as flight in the ancestors of birds or hair in mammals might trigger a massive expansion of animals with those characteristics. > > "Hedges argues that while such bursts do occur, the vast majority of speciation is more prosaic and evenly timed. To start, two populations become separated, driven apart by geography or other factors. New species emerge every 2 million years, on average, in a metronomic rhythm tapped out by the random nature of genetic mutations. He likens the process to radioactive decay. It's impossible to predict when an individual radioactive nucleus will decay, but a clump of many atoms will decay at a highly predictable rate known as the material's half-life. Similarly, mutations strike the genome randomly, but over a long enough time the accumulation of mutations follows a pattern. “There is a kind of speciation clock ticking along,” Hedges said."- Am I the only one that feels the need to point out that geographic differences can ONLY account for land animals? Birds and fish would never be restricted by such things except under relatively extreme circumstances.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Evolution: A new theory; rate of speciation
by David Turell , Thursday, May 07, 2015, 15:15 (3490 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > Tony: Am I the only one that feels the need to point out that geographic differences can ONLY account for land animals? Birds and fish would never be restricted by such things except under relatively extreme circumstances.-You are absolutely correct, but see the article I entered today. It is a much better approach.