Sci Am\'s Complexity with Darwinism (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Tuesday, January 17, 2012, 18:27 (4695 days ago)
Lots of fluff. Just quote another scientist's fluffly conjecture and the appearance of eyes must be easy. Cambrian eyes have no precursors, so how is is step-wise possible 1% at a time, as the article proposes:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2012/01/16/evolution-the-rise-of-comp...
Sci Am\'s Complexity with Darwinism
DAVID: Lots of fluff. Just quote another scientist's fluffy conjecture and the appearance of eyes must be easy. Cambrian eyes have no precursors, so how is step-wise possible 1% at a time, as the article proposes:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2012/01/16/evolution-the-rise-of-comp...
I agree that “simplicity†is a common cop-out, as is the theory that rudimentary new organs can create themselves through chance mutations and perfect themselves by tiny (1%) increments. But there is more to this article than fluff. I was particularly struck by the following section:
“Each and every one of our cells is a testament to the simplest way that complexity can arise: have one simple thing combine with a different one. The powerhouses of our cells, called mitochondria, are complex organelles that are thought to have arisen in a very simple way. Some time around 3 billion years ago, certain bacteria had figured out how to create energy using electrons from oxygen, thus becoming aerobic. Our ancient ancestors thought this was quite a neat trick, and, as single cells tend to do, they ate these much smaller energy-producing bacteria. But instead of digesting their meal, our ancestors allowed the bacteria to live inside them as an endosymbiont, and so the deal was struck: our ancestor provides the fuel for the chemical reactions that the bacteria perform, and the bacteria, in turn, produces ATP for both of them. Even today we can see evidence of this early agreement – mitochondria, unlike other organelles, have their own DNA, reproduce independently of the cell’s reproduction, and are enclosed in a double membrane (the bacterium’s original membrane and the membrane capsule used by our ancestor to engulf it). Over time the mitochondria lost other parts of their biology they didn’t need, like the ability to move around, blending into their new home as if they never lived on their own. The end result of all of this, of course, was a much more complex cell, with specialized intracellular compartments devoted to different functions: what we now refer to as a eukaryote.â€
I’m in no position to judge the accuracy of the science, but if all this is true, it again raises the question of innate creative intelligence within so-called simpler forms of life, which are able to “figure out†how best to exploit prevailing conditions and to combine with other forms in order to maximize efficiency. How such “intelligence†got there in the first place is a mystery (chance v. design), but once we accept the ability of cells to form efficient combinations, and we accept ability to cope with the environment as the ultimate factor in survival (= natural selection), we surely have the basic mechanism for evolution. “Specialized intracellular compartments devoted to different functions†seems to me a good description of every brain and every body – all having developed from “intelligent†cooperation between cells. At the risk of being a bore, let me yet again repeat Lynn Margulis’s insight that evolution owes just as much to cooperation as it does to competition. I certainly agree with you (yet again) that gradualism doesn't seem feasible, and random mutations seem far less convincing to me than combinatory adaptations and innovations in response to environmental change. This doesn't alter the evolutionary framework of common descent and natural selection according to environmental suitability. So are we heading towards a neo-neo-Darwinism?
Sci Am\'s Complexity with Darwinism
by David Turell , Thursday, January 19, 2012, 00:50 (4693 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Lots of fluff. Just quote another scientist's fluffy conjecture and the appearance of eyes must be easy. Cambrian eyes have no precursors, so how is step-wise possible 1% at a time, as the article proposes:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2012/01/16/evolution-the-rise-of-comp...
I agree that “simplicity†is a common cop-out, as is the theory that rudimentary new organs can create themselves through chance mutations and perfect themselves by tiny (1%) increments. But there is more to this article than fluff.
No there isn't. The Lynn Margulis stuff is standard knowledge. The fluff is all the bit-by-bit propositions, the 1% increments. Horse turds!
I’m in no position to judge the accuracy of the science, but if all this is true, it again raises the question of innate creative intelligence within so-called simpler forms of life, which are able to “figure out†how best to exploit prevailing conditions and to combine with other forms in order to maximize efficiency. How such “intelligence†got there in the first place is a mystery (chance v. design),
This is part of my pre-planning theory. The genome does have more smarts than we have found so far
So are we heading towards a neo-neo-Darwinism?
That is what the Altenberg conference was all about.
Sci Am\'s Complexity with Darwinism
I asked if we were heading towards a neo-neo-Darwinism, and David replied: “That is what the Altenberg conference was all about.â€
I didn’t know it had already taken place, so I googled it and came across an interesting report. I’m reproducing the section that particularly took my eye:
darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2011/01/woodstock-of-evolution-extended.html
(For some reason, this doesn't connect. Sorry.)
"Pigliucci and Muller sketch a conceptual framework for the Extended Synthesis as embracing three steps in "the continuous expansion of evolutionary theory."
The first step is Darwinism, which includes the ideas of variation, inheritance, and natural selection.
The second step is the Modern Synthesis, which includes the ideas of Darwinism but also the ideas of gene mutation, Mendelian inheritance, population genetics, contingency, and speciation.
The third step includes the ideas of Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis but also the new ideas of evo-devo theory (evolutionary developmental biology), plasticity and accommodation, niche construction, epigenetic inheritance, replicator theory, evolvability, multilevel selection (including group selection), and genomic evolution.
By thus presenting their Extended Theory as an expansion of evolutionary theory that includes Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis, Pigliucci and Muller make it clear that Mazur and the intelligent-design creationists were wrong to depict the Altenberg conference as overthrowing the Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian views of evolution. Even the most radical of the "Altenberg 16"--such as Stuart Newman--do not deny the fact of evolution or the importance of natural selection or the importance of genes. Rather, they embrace all of this, even as they argue that genetic mutation and natural selection are not the only factors governing evolution. So, for example, Stuart Kauffman and Stuart Newman argue that we need to see the evolutionary importance of the form-giving processes of self-assembly and self-organization as governed by the laws of physics and chemistry."
It seems to me that the argument about “overthrowing†Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism is pointless. People who talk in such terms are as blinkered as those who pretend that natural selection is synonymous with evolution, and therefore any opposition is a sign of ignorance. Some elements (gradualism and the importance of random mutations) seem to be on their way out, and new elements (epigenetics, self-organization) are on their way in. But no-one apparently opposes the basic theory of evolution itself (our David doesn’t either), and the discussion centres on the mechanisms that allow it to take place. This extended theory sounds like genuine progress to me.
“Self-assembly and self-organization†are precisely what I was thinking of in my posts about the “intelligent cellâ€. (It’s OK, I’m not asking for any prizes!) But why, oh why, this constant battle between evolutionists and ID-ers? I can understand the hostility between evolutionists and Creationists who think God created each species separately, but for all the grandiose terminology there is nothing, absolutely nothing that can help with the huge problem of origins. How did all these processes come into being? Apart from natural selection, which is clearly an automatic procedure (what is not fit to survive won’t survive), the rest serve only to emphasize the extraordinary complexity of the reproductive, adaptive and innovative mechanisms that make evolution possible. If people are happy to believe that chance could assemble them, so be it. But “governed by the laws of physics and chemistry†doesn’t tell us anything about their origin. As usual, we come back to faith, either in the creativity of chance, or in the creativity of some unknown, intelligent form of energy. Science doesn’t enter into it.
Sci Am\'s Complexity with Darwinism
by David Turell , Friday, January 20, 2012, 15:27 (4692 days ago) @ dhw
As usual, we come back to faith, either in the creativity of chance, or in the creativity of some unknown, intelligent form of energy. Science doesn’t enter into it.
How much faith do you have in the 'creativity of chance'?
By the way, I should get credit for pre-planning and front-end loading:
http://thegenomestale.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/a-front-loading-prediction-and-molecular...