25 Responses to “Those Simple Bacteria”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
-
Featured Books
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
February 26th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
Comment by Mung — February 26, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
February 27th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Again an example of the teleological thinking that is engrained in biological research. Bacteria that evolve a strategy? A strategy involves foresight and intelligent analysis of past events. Optimizing efficiency falls within classical Darwinism, but to deal with the challenge they face?
It is the wrong kind of teleology they apply. What is the goal exactly? Efficiency optimization is only about changing an existing function (adaptation), not about the creation of new functions (evolution).
Comment by AdR — February 27, 2008 @ 7:36 am
February 28th, 2008 at 12:53 am
I don't understand the point of claiming certain words imply "teleologic thinking." It is obviously not the speaker's intention to imply any sort of teleologic explanation and the claim that certain vocabulary means something the speaker never intended is just silly. Nothing about "evolve a strategy" requires an intelligent mind to be involved. By reading more into specific words than the speaker intended you are effectively reading the work out of context in order to support your desired conclusion.
Regardless, I'm still fascinated by the question of whether evolution should be considered "intelligent" in and of itself even if nothing like a human mind is involved. Evolution might not be concuss but it might actually be intelligent. Regardless, even if its ability to mimic a designer does not denote genuine intelligence the fact that this process can mimic a designer is justification enough to use so-called "teleologic" terminology.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 28, 2008 @ 12:53 am
February 28th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Of course the speaker wasn't intending that. Come on, TB, that's the part of the point.
Do you really not get it?
Comment by Doug — February 28, 2008 @ 1:13 am
February 28th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Doug, I truly honestly don't understand why people think this means something. At best it seems to me like a simple artifact of how we use language and nothing more. To me it just seems like another example of the common human practice of personification. We personify all sorts of things without believing that implies they have minds or purpose. When my car has trouble starting on a cold morning and I say, "My car is being grumpy," I don't truly believe my car is capable of expressing that emotion.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 28, 2008 @ 1:32 am
February 28th, 2008 at 5:17 am
TB, if you claim that evolution is non-teleologic by nature, you should refrain from using teleological language. If you cannot explain evolution in non-teleological terms, as seems to be the case, maybe evolution is teleological.
The important question is why did these things evolve. Was is an innate drive to more complexity, or to a 'better' (anthropomorph) bacterium, or to another goal. It is the essence of evolution.
It's fine that you say that your car was grumpy, but if I took it to a garage and my car mechanic would say that, it would be a different story. We are talking here about scientists that are suppposed to understand evolution. But as you hear them speak, you know that they don't have a clue about evolution. Which is not a problem, as long as they admit it and are open for new theories. At the moment, evolutionary science claims thay have figured out how evolution works and are not open to other theories.
Comment by AdR — February 28, 2008 @ 5:17 am
February 28th, 2008 at 7:36 am
AdR:
Well said AdR.
Comment by Bradford — February 28, 2008 @ 7:36 am
February 28th, 2008 at 11:08 am
AdR:
A strategy is also a game-theoretic concept, and game-theoretical analysis is a commonly used tool in evolutionary biology. A strategy is just a rule (possibly genetically encoded) describing what "actions" to take (e.g. how much of enzymes X and Y to produce) under a range of conditions. No foresight or intelligent analysis of past events required.
It can be frustrating to know so much more than the scientists, only to be ignored by them.
Comment by Raevmo — February 28, 2008 @ 11:08 am
February 28th, 2008 at 11:13 am
An important aspect of language evolution is how words are often borrowed for new purposes. For instance, we are all familiar with these terms coined by Shakespeare; coldhearted, heart of gold, stony hearted, flowery language, soft-headed, mind's eye, salad days, naked truth, moonbeam. No one is claiming that moonlight is a large timber or architectural element, even though that's the literal meaning.
The word "evolution" comes from the Latin evolvere, to unroll as a scroll. "Gene" comes from the Greek genea for generation. "Carousel" comes from the French carrousel for a tilting match. The history of language is largely the history of cooption. And pertinent to this discussion, "bacterium" comes from the Greek bakterion for a small staff.
You're confusing not knowing everything with not knowing anything.
Comment by Zachriel — February 28, 2008 @ 11:13 am
February 28th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Comment by Raevmo "”No foresight or intelligent analysis of past events required.
And game theory is also utilized to investigate the behavior of rational, intelligent agents adapting to challenging conditions"¦ Like bacteria.
I suspect AdR is being a bit facetious in criticizing biologists for their "spooky" artifactual, teleological terminology.
But I'm not"¦ being facetious.
Biology is teleology.
Comment by Rock — February 28, 2008 @ 11:37 am
February 28th, 2008 at 11:57 am
We are using the concept of strategy in the context of evolution. I would like to know what actions evolutions must take, but my first question would be: in order to obtain what goal? You can't have a strategy without a goal but we have to define this goal. Most evolutionists mention survival, and this is fine but one should recognize that survival also implies a goal. But this is also where it goes wrong for evolutionists, because once you call survival a goal there is absolutely no driving force for increases in complexity in the survival equations. Even worse, if you look closely at RM+NS it would inhibit evolution as it tends to lock itself in a fitness peak.
It is well-known among evolutionists that we do not have a clue about evolution. Name me one example of a macroevolutionary event (i.e. anything that originated, say more than 100 million years ago) that we understand. BTW, it is not frustrating, it is encouraging!
Comment by AdR — February 28, 2008 @ 11:57 am
February 28th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I just want to know how it works. Evolution is something that we can define in physical terms, so just mentioning co-option is too easy. Tell me how the system works!
We know so little about evolution that I can safely say that we do not know anything about it. We know that it happened, also in overall terms, but not the mechanisms. My wife can describe a car in detail and you will probably think she knows a lot about cars. But really, what all the different parts do, she does not have a clue.
Comment by AdR — February 28, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
That's fine, but that wasn't your previous lament. You objected to people borrowing words for new purposes. This is a natural process that has occurred throughout the history of language. It can lead to confusion, which is why scientists often adopt words from dead languages. But then it all starts to sound like Greek to some.
I assume that's the Pluralis majestatis. There is a great deal known about evolution, including its history.
Is there a reason why you would reject evidence from more recent epochs? In any case, the radiation of Dinosauria would certainly qualify as macroevolution.
Comment by Zachriel — February 28, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
ArD:
Fitness is of course more than just survival. Some reproduction is also required.
You are assuming a fixed fitness-landscape, but in fact the fitness-landscape is ever-changing because of the ever-changing environment. Today's peak maybe tomorrow's valley.
By the way, complexity doesn't always increase during evolution. You must be aware of plenty of examples where organisms became simpler, e.g. after adopting (no teleology intended) a parasitic lifestyle.
Comment by Raevmo — February 28, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I make a distinction between evolution and adaptation, or macro and microevolution. I am interested in macroevolution and as long as we do not know how that works, we don't know how evolution works.
I don't contest that evolution happened, but I argue here that we do not understand how it works. I also argue that one of the reasons we do not understand it, is because science has the wrong approach. They should approach the problem from a teleological point of view, as a molecular machine in which the components and architecture are there for a purpose.
I assume that the dinosaur graph is not based on phylogenetic evidence, but on gross anatomical features. This is what the old biologists already did more than 100 years ago. Do we really know how we should translate the anatomical events into genetic events? Do we know how to change a genome so that it will become its own branch in a tree? Do we know what the organisms looked like at branching points? What real understanding of evolution have we gained beyond the classical 100-year old trees.
BTW, I have a nice collection of Trees on my site.
Comment by AdR — February 28, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
But that's not how evolution works. It is supposed to be a slow gradual process, whereas environmental changes can be very quick. Any deviations to an optimized/adapted function will cause diminished survival/fitness. A change in environment will lead to valleys in an adapted individual, and the chance that a changing environment will actual benefit the population is small. I have seen fitness-lanscape pictures where they created a fitness bridge between peaks. But as long as we do not know the real molecular counterparts of the peaks, we don't know how the deep the valleys are.
To me it seems that organisms have strived to maintain their environment at all costs. We see that even minute changes in environment can wipe out entire species. It's extinction we observe more than evolution in response to environmental challenges.
You are right about decreases in complexity. I think the bacterial/prokaryote line is an example.
Comment by AdR — February 28, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
The Pluralis majestatis again. We know quite a lot about how evolution works. A primary mechanism of adaptation is natural selection, but there are a variety of other mechanisms at work.
Phylogeny, the evolutionary history of a kind of organism. Of course, it's phylogenetic evidence.
Do you reject Common Descent of Dinosauria? If so, then we need to start with that. If not, then the phylogenetic tree provides a important evidence concerning the process of stepwise adaptation.
Comment by Zachriel — February 28, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
AdR:
There's that teleological "strived". And what do you mean by "at all costs"
Both extinctions and evolution/adaptation are observed as a result of environmental change. What makes you think extinction occurs more often?
Interesting idea. Why do you think so?
Comment by Raevmo — February 28, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
We can actually measure the rate of evolution (e.g. in darwins). And it can be very rapid; much more rapid than required to explain the historical record.
Yes, they can. That's why genetic diversity is important to a robust population. And a varied population can evolve quickly, especially with sexual selection acting as an amplifier. We can actually observe evolution on this scale.
Ah, there's your problem. You need to get outside more. If you actually observe organisms, you will find that they often exhibit a great deal of diversity in traits.
Consider a great scientist, such as Charles Darwin. His historic voyage around the world included detailed observations of many different organisms. His subsequent scientific output made him one of the greatest scientist of the age"”not even considering his Theory of Evolution.
Sometimes. Sometimes not. Pandas and Gorillas seem very limited in their ecological flexibility. Cockroaches and mice can rapidly adapt to many different environments. Birds just migrate to greener climes.
Extinction is an important evolutionary process. There are tradeoffs between specialization and flexibility.
Comment by Zachriel — February 28, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Generally speaking I agree with AdR. The key word is optimized. I can recall at least one instance where a decrease in functionality enhanced fitness in a prokaryotic organism but the enhanced fitness was localized and particular to a specific problem. Elimination of the environmental challenge witnessed a return to prior allele frequency. Diversity can of course arise over time but I suspect it does not usually come at the cost of decreasing a vital function.
Comment by Bradford — February 28, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Zachriel,
In my definition, phylogenetic evidence would be based on actual gene sequences and molecular biology. I don't reject common descent at all, although I don't know how the transitions in the tree or the bi- or tri- or multi-furcations were caused. I think that evolution can indeed go very fast, but I doubt of the RM+NS models will be of any value for our understanding of evolution. To me it is like the fuel of a car: I need it but it doesn't help me a bit in understanding the workings of a car.
I also see the tremendous value of the population as a design pattern for easy change, but we have to wonder if that is not innate to the species, i.e. the species has a built-in hidden variety that can be exposed when challenged. Maybe a large part of the driving force of evolution comes from real survival, i.e. after a catastrophic evens. But quickly we don't talk about optimized fitness and higher survival rates of advantageous mutations anymore. Instead, we have to talk about rigging the system with fail-safe mechanisms, pre-empting unknown challenges, or fallback systems to earlier working versions (like software).
Exactly, but in order to define specialization and flexibility, you need to think in teleological, engineering terms.
Comment by AdR — February 28, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
But this is the very thing I disagree with. You cannot claim certain words are your own and mean what you want them to mean regardless of what the speaker wants them to mean. It is the English language which is "teleologic" in its usage patterns, you are effectively suggesting that Science shouldn't be allowed to use English. And it is human nature to personify things and speak of them as active agents, you are effectively suggesting that humans shouldn't be allowed to discuss science using natural language. Biology could easily be discussed in technically accurate ways using "non-teleologic" terminology but to do so would involve creating a complicated jargon that makes the topic harder to understand for us English speaking humans. Instead existing "teleologic" terms are repurposed to support a non-teleological meaning. This doesn't imply that teleologic terminology is required, only that it is easily understood.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 28, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I think most humans are only capable of seeing things like this in "teleologic" terms, but I have no reason to believe this is anything more than a limitation of human thinking. We are highly biased by how we think and its very hard for most people to see beyond those biases to imagine other possibilities.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 28, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
February 28th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
phylo-: tribe : race : phylum {phylogeny}
-geny: generation : production {phylogeny}
The question is the hereditary relationships. You don't have to know the molecular genetic sequence of dinosaurs to determine their hereditary relationships, or the history of their descent.
If you don't reject common descent, then look at the diversification of dinosaurs again. You will see that what seems like radical macroevolutionary adaptations when we look at the end-points of transitions is actually stepwise changes over millions of years.
We don't *need* to think in those terms. It is quite possible to model the relationship between specialization, flexibility, and the rate of environmental stress without invoking teleology.
Comment by Zachriel — February 28, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
From the article:
Based on his teleological thinking, and his hypothesis of front-loaded evolution, Mike Gene has been predicting for years that scientists would eventually find out that bacteria were more than a bag of enzymes, and that the complexity of their inner structure wouldn't be that much simpler than eukaryotes. KUDOS, Mike!!!
Comment by Bilbo — March 4, 2008 @ 6:43 pm