After suggesting the existence of an evolution tool kit, how would one go about identifying the contents of such a tool kit? We would need to assign the functional role of "˜evolution' to specific genes. Typically, biologists classify genes according to their functional roles. But they don't assign evolution itself as a functional role.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
July 29th, 2007 at 6:41 am
Well said. We need not be guided by entrenched perspectives if better serving ones exist.
Comment by Bradford — July 29, 2007 @ 6:41 am
July 29th, 2007 at 8:57 am
I think you are suggesting a false dichotomy between biological function and unintended. A non-teleological viewpoint sees all biological functions as unintended.
Comment by Mark Frank — July 29, 2007 @ 8:57 am
July 29th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Hi Mike,
Would you rather I comment here or at http://www.TheDesignMatrix.com?
Your Evolution Genes post was interesting along with your A Tool Kit post.
I recommend to TTers they click on both links and read them if they have not already.
I have a question (be it stupid and/or obvious).
When you talk about an "evolution gene" you aren't using this modern dictionary definition of the term are you?
From the The American Heritage Science Dictionary…
gene (jēn)A segment of DNA, occupying a specific place on a chromosome, that is the basic unit of heredity. Genes act by directing the production of RNA, which determines the synthesis of proteins that make up living matter and are the catalysts of all cellular processes. The proteins that are determined by genetic DNA result in specific physical traits, such as the shape of a plant leaf, the coloration of an animal's coat, or the texture of a person's hair.
Are you using the term in a more generic sense similar to calling a meme a social "gene"
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 29, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Hi TP,
The dictionary definition you cite works just fine.
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2007 @ 7:54 am
July 30th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Hi Mike,
One of the dangers of asking a question is getting an unexpected answer.
However, if there is an evolution gene front-loaded into DNA for all life on Earth that even the shortest DNA strand would have it.
I understand viruses would be the likely candidates. Would you say the following paper is relavent to this discusion?
No Apparent Nucleotide Sequence Specificity in Cellular DNA Juxtaposed to Retrovirus Proviruses
I guess it is possible that viruses "borrow" the evolution gene for infected cells. But that wouldn't be the case for the smallest organism. What gets us back to Nanobes.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 30, 2007 @ 8:25 am
July 30th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Hi TP,
I'm thinking in terms of evolution genes. These would be a consortium of genes that interface with the architecture of life to facilitate evolution. But as I mentioned, they would have to have a function on a small scale, otherwise the genes would be lost.
Viruses are very interesting….but I would get too far ahead of myself here. I'll try to work on that candidate (an intriguing possibility) later tonight.
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2007 @ 8:33 am
July 30th, 2007 at 8:38 am
It seems wrong for the same reason that it would be wrong to argue that a brick intends to fall before I drop it.
I'm not sure who originally said:
When we say that a species evolves, there is no single gene or feature of that species which permits it to evolve. Evolution also occurs in non-biological contexts.
Evolution seems to be something that happens to a population rather than something which an individual organism or a population does to itself.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 30, 2007 @ 8:38 am
July 30th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Fascinating post, Mike. I'm curious to see where you're going with it. It wasn't too long ago that we saw the articles on DNA having parallel codes, so it certainly seems plausible, given the assumption of front-loaded evolution, that evolution genes exist.
Comment by Bilbo — July 30, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
July 30th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Hi Bilbo,
You wrote…
That is why I asked Mike if a "gene" was necessarily a "Segment of DNA" per a dictionary definition.
I have been reading lots of articles about how DNA is a computer. DNA is ripe for quantum effects (it is a chain of small, relatively basic building blocks). DNA is used by scientists building quantum computers both for wiring and qubit storage.
Human-built parallel processing DNA computers is quickly becoming old news. Human-built DNA quantum computers is becoming a reality too.
Nature has had a 4 Billion year head start on us. I think it is reasonable to suggest that DNA is already performing these functions naturally and may perform the function of Mike's "Evolution Genes".
However, this hypothesis would make the function more holistic to DNA in general as compare to a "segment of DNA".
I quoted from a scientific paper on this subject in the TT open thread here.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 30, 2007 @ 10:33 pm