All These Different Creatures are Variations of the Same Theme
by MikeGeneGuts posted this video before, but I thought I would repost it. I especially enjoyed the comments from Sean Carroll (according to Michael Ruse, "Of all the scientists in the world today, there is no one with whom Charles Darwin would rather spend an evening than Sean Carroll."):
So what this means is in some ways, some sense, evolution is a simpler process than we first thought. When you think about all of the diversity of forms out there, we first believed this would involve all sorts of novel creations, starting from scratch, again and again and again. We now understand that, no, that evolution works with packets of information and uses them in a new and different ways, and new and different combinations, without necessarily having to invent anything fundamentally new, but new combinations.
My, that's a pretty radical change in the way we view evolution. The old way was far more friendly to non-teleology and also failed to prepare scientists for the more accurate understanding of evolution, an understanding that is now much more friendly to teleology.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
How so?
To me it seems that it's now much more friendly to non-teleology. It was quite astonishing to think that evolution would over and over invent novel animals. Seeing now that with just a handful of mutations you can change a winged segment into a segment with legs or a segment with antennae seems to make non-teleological evolution much more plausible.
Comment by hrun — May 4, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Hrun,
You're missing the point. The reason things are so easy for evolution, is because all the information is already there in the common ancestor. This strongly implies foresight.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — May 4, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Are you arguing that ALL the information was already there? Is that supported by evidence?
In addition, I do not share your view that this strongly implies foresight. Why would it?
Comment by hrun — May 4, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Hi hrun,
Several ways.
1. We've always known evolution has occurred thanks to the fossil record, sequence data, etc. Take the old view that the eye evolved 40 times independently. This was a great illustration of the minimal needs and power of natural selection. All you needed was some type of generic, vague, function (vision) and RM & NS, which cares only if something, anything, "works," would find a way, any way, to bring something into existence that would elicit the function. But now, what happens, for example, if we take the highly conserved protein Pax6 away? Without it, is there good reason to think the blind watchmaker would easily craft eyes?
2. The "genetic toolkit" is what facilitates evolution, meaning that the toolkit itself must be explained in a way where evidence of evolution-made-possible-by-the-toolkit is questionably extrapolated to explain the toolkit.
3. The new view of evolution is already beginning to import engineering concepts and terminology (I'll write about this some day), helping us to better visualize evolution as programmed and programming.
4. The new view of evolution would much easier to guide/channel via front-loading, rendering front-loading increasingly plausible.
BTW, I should clarify my wording in the OP. I'm not trying to suggest that the new evidence is more friendly to a teleological position as opposed to a non-teleological perspective (I'm not on a duck hunt). I am saying that the new view of evolution is more friendly to teleology than the old view.
Comment by MikeGene — May 4, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
That's fine then. No more objections. I truly never quite understand your search for the rabbit. To me it all sound like evolution (except for that design event).
Comment by hrun — May 4, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
May 4th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
What happened to slow and gradual changes coming from many genes with small effects? Oh by the way, I found this wonderful paper by Eugene K Balon having to do with epigenetics:
http://www.charliewagner.net/d...
Comment by Stephen — May 4, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 5:51 am
It is interesting how both surprising complexity (e.g., look what ancient comb jellies can do) and surprising simplicity (e.g., few genes needed for much variety) increase the plausibility of front-loading.
Comment by Raevmo — May 5, 2008 @ 5:51 am
May 5th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Hi Raevmo,
Two things.
First, I never claimed that the comb jelly finding increased the plausibility of front-loading.
Second, evolution and organisms are different things.
Comment by MikeGene — May 5, 2008 @ 7:03 am
May 5th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Mike,
In the OP "As Expected" you claim:
and you highlight this conclusion from a related study:
It seems to me that there you consider the "unexpected complexity" as evidence increasing the plausibility of a front-loading scenario. Yet here, in the current thread, it's the unexpected simplicity that counts in favor of front-loading. Am I misreading it, or does that seem a bit contradictory?
Comment by Raevmo — May 5, 2008 @ 8:59 am
May 5th, 2008 at 10:26 am
See article by Scientific American:
http://www.sciam.com/article.c...
There is much talk of "evolution," but no mention of "Darwin" which is odd given that Darwin's theory is thought to be the cornerstone of evolution. There are three weak-hearted references to "natural selection." And there is much talk of switches, but little on the switch turner which relates back to epigenetics.
Comment by Stephen — May 5, 2008 @ 10:26 am
May 5th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Maybe that's because Darwin lived 200 year ago and his theory has been updated since. So people currently rarely talk about Darwinian Evolution, except for when they want to talk about the history of the theory. In all other cases it is generally just referred to as evolution.
Comment by hrun — May 5, 2008 @ 10:30 am
May 5th, 2008 at 10:38 am
New Test of Gravity's Strength
There is much talk of "gravity", but no mention of "Newton" or "Einstein" which is odd given that their theories are thought to be the cornerstone of gravity.
Comment by Zachriel — May 5, 2008 @ 10:38 am
May 5th, 2008 at 11:27 am
No.
What is most fascinating to me is that critics are not astonished by this.
It increasingly (and rather quickly) is becoming apparent that the blind watchmaker argument only makes sense if the blind watchmaker is given a set of parts that are easy to work with, and an appropriate set of tools that he can easily manage. Sit the blind watchmaker at a workbench under these conditions and he might be able to mimic rational design.
Sit the blind watchmaker in a puddle of geochemical goo with no tools and he suddenly looks rather sad and impotent.
Comment by chunkdz — May 5, 2008 @ 11:27 am
May 5th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Do you really find the HOX gene complex to be representative of "surprising simplicity"
Comment by chunkdz — May 5, 2008 @ 11:34 am
May 5th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Remember when the cobbled-together, many-solutions-to-the-same-problem, keep whatever works, aspect of life was evidence of "evolution"
I do want to find that bakery selling the have them and eat them cakes.
Comment by Pez — May 5, 2008 @ 11:58 am
May 5th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Pez, but there are still many of such examples. Look at a dolphin and a tuna. Or maybe a butterfly, bird, bat and flying squirrel. Convergent evolution (the use of completely different structures for the same purpose in a similar manner) is present all over the place. You just need to look.
And, if you look very hard, you will recognize the common thread of both processes: Evolution tends to work with what is available.
Comment by hrun — May 5, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Very true. Is that going to be part of Book Two?
Comment by nobody — May 5, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Yup, and there he sits in his puddle of goo, waiting and waiting. And one day the magical-design fairy came along and touched the puddle of goo with her wand, and lo-and-behold, the first cell was created. And finally the blind watchmaker went to work. Tinkering in his puddle of goo with the tool box of the first cell.
Ah, how fun. I love stories that have the design fairy and her magical wand in it.
Comment by hrun — May 5, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
It does seem fanciful does it not? If chemical reactions led to the first cell we could expect a determistic explanation. Get the right conditions and the right substances and it happens every time. Alternatively one could hypothesize that some incredibly unlikely event took place through sheer good luck. But that would not be very scientific would it? So what theoretical framework avoids the dreaded design possibility?
Which is why I believe the question arising from ID should be how the tool box came about?
Comment by Bradford — May 5, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Why do you think it is a question arising from ID and not a question from evolution/biology? Seeing that it was biologists studying the evolution of these genes that found and characterized the toolkit. And seeing that it is biologists studying evolution who are writing the grants and doing to the research to study the origin of the parts of the 'toolbox'?
Comment by hrun — May 5, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Which is why I believe the question arising from ID should be how the tool box came about?
The toolkit was found long ago and biologists have used its existence to explain how life diversified. They have merely been able to note the existence of a toolkit without explaining its causal genesis. Sure, there is much you can do with tools once you have them but that begs the question of where they came from. If selection reveals the origin of the toolbox itself then what are the indicators of that being the case?
Comment by Bradford — May 5, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
No you don't. You make arrogant and snide comments about them.
Meanwhile, this design fairy is going to get his magical wand back in gear and make some software spontaneously appear.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — May 5, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Ah, comments about the 'design fairy' are arrogant, but comments about a 'blind watchmaker sitting in a puddle of goo' are not? They both are (more or less) amusing anthropomorphizations of some proposed processes.
I was merely pointing out that the visual of the design fairy with her magical wand is about as ridiculous as the blind watchmaker in a puddle of goo.
Now, Bradford, is that really true? Biologists have only identified the toolkits but they know nothing about how they came into being? They have not, maybe, found more simple precursors to the toolbox used in mammals in more ancient lifeforms? They have not looked at how the toolbox has been expanded? They have not studied the evolution, structure and function of transcription factors in general? And so forth…
And no, before you ask, they have not explained the 'causal genesis' of toolkits. OOL remains an unsolved problem. But your assertion that the toolkit was found a long time ago and has since then biologists have merely been able to note its existence only shows your limited knowledge of the current state of knowledge about such toolkits.
Comment by hrun — May 5, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Wow, Stephen. Thanks for the pdf link to Balon's article - it's very cool. What we have here is basically EAM - Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis, as elucidated by Mike Turner. Obviously some biologists have had this idea in mind for awhile, including Mae Wan Ho, whose work has been constantly demonized by the usual suspects in the Darwinian Defense League during their desperate effort to save the theoretic behind their metaphysics all these years. Some cool quotes from the article…
Ho's book The Rainbow and the Worm was one of the many volumes of required reading I had to absorb before taking the UA course in quantum consciousness by Hameroff & Co. back in '99. I liked it not just because it was as small a volume as Einstein's Relativity, but because it so beautifully illustrated dynamics of life that simply cannot be found in the dry, authoritarian genetic determinism of Neo-Darwinism. More cool stuff…
And just to have it here where those unfamiliar with it can read it for themselves and compare to the biologists' views above, here is Mike Turner's definition of EAM in the ISCID Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy.
See, these dissents from NDS and gene-centric 'Modern Evolutionary Theory' so often asserted in places like this by staunch DD die-hards have quite a long history. The 'authority' these DDs would dearly love to assert against all dissent simply does not exist anymore, hasn't existed for awhile. So they attack those whose dissents may include room for a religious metaphysic instead, turning what should be an entirely scientific debate into the usual Dueling Metaphysics between religion and atheism, a cat fight that will never end so long as there are humans to fight about it.
So if by chance there are any readers who are still unsure of the death of gene-centrism and the old RM-NS model of evolution that can't explain biology, don't be fooled. They've already lost the battle within their own scientific disciplines. They just don't want any 'lesser humans' who still believe in God to know about it.
Comment by Joy — May 5, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Maybe I forgot some things about mturners EAM, but how is his 'theory' not gene-centric? The only argument I ever had with him was about how mutations came about, not whether these mutations actually shaped phenotypes.
Comment by hrun — May 5, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Joy:
Modern Evolutionary Theory is not the strawman that you like to beat up in your increasingly shrill outbursts of anger. Go read Mary Jane West-Eberhard's "Developmental Plasticity and Evolution" for a modern view.
Comment by Raevmo — May 5, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Hmm. One might get the impression that you're actually hostile to the very idea of a pre-earth designer. If we discover a designer, or he/she/it actually shows up someday and puts all doubt to rest, are you going to be disappointed?
Make it a great day
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 5, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Oh no. I would actually be thrilled if aliens showed up on our planet. And I would certainly be surprised if these aliens turn out to be the ones who seeded earth with life. However, it would merely push back the problem on how life arose in the first place.
If, however, you are alluding to the God of the bible, then I would hope I would get some one-on-one time with him/her/it. I would certainly have lots of things to say to the God of the bible. And if it turns out to be some other form of deity, then I guess I will have to make up my mind when it happens.
Comment by hrun — May 5, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
hrun:
Primarily, adaptive changes in the organism are triggered by the environmental selective pressure (to which the organism must adapt) arise first in the epigenome with the heuristic search for workable adaptations at the intersection of cellular communications within the system and with the environment - expression suiting. If the adaptation turns out to be useful long term, the expression gets passed through the epigenome can become permanent as genome changes ('marked' expression elements and suite memory [possibly in the histone and chromatin dynamics]).
Mutations in genes generally occur as damage (the 'random' things that can happen in replication, recombination and via damage to nucleotides) are primarily neutral - 'variation' - or harmful, causing disease or susceptibility to disease. Evolution does not happen that way, but by heritable expression changes. The "genes as toolkit" view - a library, not a blueprint for kinds/species of life.
This also works well with front-loading, since life as intelligent designer of itself based on its conditions of life can account for biodiversity on this planet as well as the presence of the toolkit genes in the supposedly most primitive forms. It also could support the 'seeding' scenario, or even some form of original Intelligent Design by a deific or multidimensional uber-being.
Simply denying what's evident here on Earth won't answer open questions about life's origins or the directions of evolution. Life is far too complex and "designed-to-evolve" for random accident to be a reasonable answer. It's about time 'science' stopped trying to impose that ridiculous view on humanity by authority, because it doesn't know what the truth is. There is absolutely no reason that anyone on this planet need believe there is no design or purpose. Even if in the end, it's what we make of it.
Comment by Joy — May 5, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Is this your interpretation of EAM? I don't see any of this stuff in mturners article, nor did I see him write this.
[quote]Simply denying what's evident here on Earth won't answer open questions about life's origins or the directions of evolution.[...][/quote]
Ah yeah, denying the evident. Imposing ridiculous views by authority. Science in a nutshell.
Comment by hrun — May 5, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
hrun
What if they were War of the Worlds type aliens or aliens like the in the movie Aliens would you still be thrilled? You seem to be easy to please as long as we are not talking about Yahweh
Of course you would be because you deny that you could even suspect that they did it till you got to know them. You couldn't possibly have any other response could you?
let me get this strait any aliens would thrill but suprise you,Your not even sure what gender the God of the Bible is but you know that he would piss you off and you don't know how Thor would make you feel.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 5, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Randomness and selection are not context independent. Randomness depends on the sample space, and selection depends on the fitness landscape. This dependence cannot be argued away, and so natural selection is not self-contained. Natural selection is found depending on the very fabric of space-time, its boundary condition. Therefore, natural selection is incomplete; randomness and selection are only abstract caricatures of the space-time fabric. Space-time is concrete, not abstract.
Teleology can be smuggled into the geometric structure that mimics space-time (including what we call randomness and selection). Therefore, natural selection can be coopted and turned into an artificial selection that has goals.
Not only genes can be coopted, and I have prepared a book list that shows this activity:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutio...
Comment by Stephen — May 5, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
fifth monarchy man, you are not being serious here. Kornbelt asked about pre-earth designers showing up. Neither the aliens from War of the Worlds, nor the Vogons, nor the Martians from Mars Attacks nor the Aliens from ID4 were (as far as I remember) the supposed pre-earth designers that seeded life on earth. I would assume that the aliens that actually seed life on earth would be somewhat benevolent and not intent on destroying their creation. Of course I could be wrong, and, if that was the case, I obviously would not be thrilled, were those aliens the ones the show up.
Yeah. I know. Silly me, being surprised if aliens show up. You, on the other hand wouldn't be?
Surely you have to know that God showing would also surprise me tremendously. As for the gender of God, I was under the impression that God was kinda gender neutral, especially since kornbelt wrote 'he/she/it'.
And yes, Thor would certainly piss me off less than the God of the Bible. Maybe because I'm ignorant about the supposed deeds of Thor. But the way I understood it, apart from a little bit of interference here or there, the Nordic Gods created the world and then kept pretty much to themselves.
Comment by hrun — May 5, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Well maybe, and maybe not. Wouldn't it depend on their agenda?
Why?
Also, you seem to assume that aliens would have "seeded" life. What exactly does that mean to you?
Hmm. That "however" is an awfully quick change of point. In fact, why is there a "however" necessary in that sentence at all? Unless you are concerned about the Ultimate Source of life's origin. I thought we were talking about earth life here.
Are you on a Dawkinsian quest?
I'm not.
Like what? (Off-topic.)
Or you might be speechless and pee your pants.
This is all academic. But I do like hearing different points of view.
Make it a great day
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 5, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Actually, I didn't mention any "gods."
Make it a great day
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 5, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Kornbelt, you talked about the designers showing up laying all doubts to rest. So I would assume you were talking about the folks who would have designed life and seeded earth with it and then left.
Of course that however is there. Were we not talking about the origin of life?
To not offend anybody, that will remain between me and the deity in question.
Maybe, I would guess that depends on how they show up. Flaming swords and horses laying death and destruction across the land… yeah, I'd probably pee my pants.
Comment by hrun — May 5, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
I said nothing about "seeding" or having "left", as those are irrelevant to my original question.
No me. Just the origin of earth life. While ultimate origins might be an interesting topic, that's not what I had in mind.
Fair enough.
Make it a great day
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 5, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Whatever, Kornbelt. You said:
The wording of the question strongly implies that the designer might not be here right now, but actually might arrive. This implies that if these designers actually designed life on earth they either seeded it from afar, or seeded it directly on earth and left.
But, be that as it may. It's irrelevant. If it is, though, then why include this (or show up someday) in the question.
Well. Your interests might be limited. To me, if an alien shows up and tells me that they are responsible for life on earth, one of my first questions would be if they knew how they came into being.
Comment by hrun — May 5, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Or that he/she/it/they might be here already invisibly, and never left. Whether they are here now, were here in the past, or in a galaxy far, far, is irrelevant. By "show up" I meant make themselves visible to humanity at large.
I suppose if they did leave the scene, "seeding" might be a good way to describe it, although they could still be here, or maybe they have come and gone many times, etc. All irrelevant to my interest, however.
I was merely interested in the question from the standpoint of whoever the designers are, and whereever they are now, what your response would be if they made themselves visible and removed all doubt about their role.
You answered my question on the first reply with, "oh no."
Make it a great day
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 5, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
hrun,
Then you should volunteer to have your brains eaten first.
Comment by chunkdz — May 5, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
hrun,
Their first question to you will be "can you shut up so we can eat your brains?"
Comment by chunkdz — May 5, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
The 'Oh no.' was referring to your question on whether I would be disappointed. And the answer to that is clearly no. As I said, I'd be thrilled– always with the caveat that I assume the 'designers' are somewhat benevolent (and don't want to eat our brains).
Comment by hrun — May 5, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
hrun
I would assume that they seeded the earth so that they could harvest your brains.
Comment by chunkdz — May 5, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
May 5th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
As I said, my happiness at discovering such aliens would most likely be somewhat limited.
Comment by hrun — May 5, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
May 6th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Then Trevors and Abel write that presciptive information is not only "abstract, conceptual" but also selects for function by "rules, and not laws." That is, there is now mechanistic entity because it chooses.
Comment by platolives — May 6, 2008 @ 12:22 am
May 6th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Hey hurn
I must admit I'm fascinated by your response
So merely from the knowledge that life is designed would give you clues to the nature of the designer? You would say he is somewhat benevolent (that is unless he is Yahweh). I find that strange. How could a designer who would willingly subject his creation to such pain suffering and death for his own ends be benevolent in your view?
So you would be less angry with a deity who would create and then leave his creation in its misery than one who would attempt to save it?
Like I said fascinating
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 6, 2008 @ 7:33 am
May 6th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Assumption!
As for the God of the Bible, we have additional information.
Maybe I think that the one who is supposedly trying to save its creation is doing a lousy job.
Comment by hrun — May 6, 2008 @ 8:00 am
May 6th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
You're not really open to a serious discussion along those lines, are you?
Obviously, this isn't the place for it, anyway.
Make it a great day
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 6, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
May 6th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
As I said, what I would say to a deity, were I to meet one, should probably remain between me and the deity.
Comment by hrun — May 6, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
May 6th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Right before it ate your brains?
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 6, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
May 6th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
hrun:
Well, there were a few years' worth of discussions, and I've of course added my own understandings based on my own observations of life. But Mike provided the basic formulation. I think I like it best because it allows for individual creativity and the range of adaptations seen. In severe selective situations, you get a genetic (and phenotypic) bottleneck, and that should be reflected in the genome of a population. Such as cheetahs. Their bottleneck was so recent they're all basically clones of each other!
Without the drastic selection and resulting bottleneck, you get drift. That gradualism (with punctuated equillibrium in radical new environmental situations) the good ol' NDS pretends it can explain (but doesn't). It also helps to explain some rather anomalous variants in quickly adaptational individuals, as well as unusual but apparently universal expression suiting amazements being documented in medical research. Case in point, the finding via microarray of a very specific genetic expression suite present in ALL tested patients who were put on ventricular assist (mechanical) while awaiting heart transplants at Duke, resulting in varying degrees of heart tissue remodeling (healing). Mechanical ventricular assist pumps haven't been around very long. This isn't a piecemeal long term evolutionary development…
The increasing inadequacy of NDS to explain what we know and what's incoming from the fields is apparent to anyone who cares to look, inside and outside the fields. What comes next will, I suspect, look an awful lot like EAM. They won't call it that, and they won't admit it allows for interpretations EAs won't like one bit, but reality is what it is. The atheism vs. religion debates will go on forever, no matter what. The evolution vs. design debate may just fade away.
Comment by Joy — May 6, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
May 9th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Good morning Mike,
It sounds like Harvard Professor of Biology and of Geology, Charles Marshall, might agree with you.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
Comment by nobody — May 9, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
May 9th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
P.S. On a somewhat related note, all that fuit fly research is finally starting to pay off!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
Comment by nobody — May 9, 2008 @ 12:24 pm