Guided evolution (split from Evolution not limited to life on earth?)

[CharonY]

43 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

And I still don't understand is evolution a change or development? So simple question, why don't you answer.

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a given population over time, as has been stated before. Not sure what you mean with development, as I do not see it well (or at all) defined in your posts. Individual development is a different discipline.

 

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

While searching for my infamous study on bacteria reschuffling their DNA deck, I stumbled on these:

Evolution is not as random as previously thought - ScienceDaily.url 88 B · 0 downloads

The title is interesting, the article even more. There seems to be a non-randomized process at play in evolution

These Species Can Recode Their Own Genetics.url 86 B · 1 download

Squid and octopus can edit and direct their own brain genes - New Scientist.url 232 B · 0 downloads

"Unlike other animals, cephalopods – the family that includes octopuses, squid and cuttlefish – do not obey the commands of their DNA to the letter.'

Squid and octopus can edit and direct their own brain genes - New Scientist.url 232 B · 0 downloads

I have not read any of them, but the text and title alone are pretty horrible for the most part. None obeys the command of their DNA to the letter, during conception we shuffle or DNA as part of the process, we modify our DNA throughout our lives epigenetically, our immune cells do recombination to create antibody diversity. The first link goes to a rather horrible interpretation of a PNAS paper, where they looked at the pangenome of a bacterium and basically found that that it is more shaped by selection than drift (based on a machine learning models). While interesting, there was no supposition that evolution is super random in the first place. What is unknown for any given population is what the contribution of each to the current shape is.

[mar_mar]

29 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a given population over time, as has been stated before.

Thank you. May i ask what have happened to those beings between an ape and a human? If we are talking about population.

If evolution is a change in gene pool, it looks like some mutation.

And if chimpanzee and a human share common ancestor, why didn't chimpanzee evolve to a human? If evolution is a change.

Why haven't chimpanzee evolved to a being between an ape and a human?

Edited January 8 by mar_mar

[Bufofrog]

5 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

May i ask what have happened to those beings between an ape and a human?

Humans are apes.  If I understand your question correctly, the answer is mans ancestors like Australopithecus and Homo Erectus died out.

[mar_mar]

4 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

 Australopithecus and Homo Erectus died out.

All of them? On the whole Earth ? Do you know what population was?

[CharonY]

13 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Thank you. May i ask what have happened to those beings between an ape and a human? If we are talking about population.

If evolution is a change in gene pool, it looks like some mutation.

And if chimpanzee and a human share common ancestor, why didn't chimpanzee evolve to a human? If evolution is a change.

Why haven't chimpanzee evolved to a being between an ape and a human?

As noted, that is not how evolution works. We are apes and we share a common ancestor with extant apes, including chimpanzees. It is like asking why your cousin did not evolve into your brother.

[mar_mar]

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

As noted, that is not how evolution works. We are apes and we share a common ancestor with extant apes, including chimpanzees. It is like asking why your cousin did not evolve into your brother.

Common ancestor was also an ape which had descendants: chimpanzee and a human. Do i understand correctly? Common ancestor is a "parent".

What comparable to those "between" changes happened to  humans since they turned to homo sapiens?

And if you say that is evolution is a change,i.e. mutation, you deny all those gifts and talents and knowledge of humans. Forget about consciesness.

 

Change is an act or process through which something becomes different.

 

Humans and apes are different. Humans are no better no worse. There's no place for comparison. Like red is not better than green

But if we talk about talented people it's a comparison.

Edited January 8 by mar_mar

[iNow]

2 hours ago, mar_mar said:

And I still don't understand is evolution a change or development? So simple question, why don't you answer

For the same reason I don’t spend time explaining math to a mosquito 

[mar_mar]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

For the same reason I don’t spend time explaining math to a mosquito 

No, sir, if you support evolution theory, you have no moral right to say that I am stupidity, (though I'm ok with this, indifferent) because evolution is a change, as I am told. And you gave me a value judgement. it's a comparison. But I am different, not better, no worse, I am above judgements, according to evolution theory. OR. Judging me, you are saying that humans are better than apes.

Edited January 9 by mar_mar

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I have not read any of them, but the text and title alone are pretty horrible for the most part. None obeys the command of their DNA to the letter, during conception we shuffle or DNA as part of the process, we modify our DNA throughout our lives epigenetically, our immune cells do recombination to create antibody diversity. The first link goes to a rather horrible interpretation of a PNAS paper, where they looked at the pangenome of a bacterium and basically found that that it is more shaped by selection than drift (based on a machine learning models). While interesting, there was no supposition that evolution is super random in the first place. What is unknown for any given population is what the contribution of each to the current shape is.

None obeys the command of their DNA to the letter, but some espousing a rigid sense of evolution still believe that it is all random. Even some accounts on this tread lean heavily in favour of max-randomness. Also, I was presenting the latter two articles (which are basically coming from the same study) to corroborate that DNA shuffling was happening. However, your post above made me realise that there was a much simpler way of doing this; conception, epigenetics and immune cell recombination. On cephalopods, its more than 60 per cent of RNA transcripts that are re-coded by editing.  So, DNA is suffled in response to environmental stress? Is it still full-mechanical? 

 

[CharonY]

23 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

None obeys the command of their DNA to the letter, but some espousing a rigid sense of evolution still believe that it is all random. Even some accounts on this tread lean heavily in favour of max-randomness.

Then the do not understand the impact of selection. And I have not seen that really reflected in most of the posts (with one or two exceptions). Folks have said that as a whole evolution has no goal, which is true, but that is not the same as saying it is random. 

 

24 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

On cephalopods, its more than 60 per cent of RNA transcripts that are re-coded by editing.  So, DNA is suffled in response to environmental stress? Is it still full-mechanical? 

No the DNA is left intact, for the most part. There are some exceptions, but if the article is what I think it is about, they are talking about RNA editing. RNA is basically a copy based on DNA (using different sugar and one different base). However, all eukaryotes process the resulting RNA. The canonical knowledge is the excision of introns, leaving a mature RNA with exons. There are also chemical modifications, caused post-transcriptional modification such as A-I editing by ADAR. What has been found in cephalopods is therefore not really something unique as such. I believe the main surprise is that canonically one assumed most of this editing does not really change the resulting protein sequence (i.e. they are neutral), but in cephalopods have a much higher frequency of these changes. 

It is not quite clear why (or perhaps the results in other organisms are somewhat underestimated, it can be tricky to as it varies from tissue to tissue) .

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

All of them? On the whole Earth ? Do you know what population was?

Yes.  Yes.  No.

Does that surprise you?

[StringJunky]

In Evolution, when something happens is purely  stochastic/random... the molecules are milling about subject to thermodynamic and other forces in a random manner. When an oxygen meets a hydrogen, under the right conditions, randomness disappears and the outcome is determined because the molecules interactive behaviour is predictable i.e determined. One should be able see that evolutionary outcomes are both deterministic and stochastic.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

you are saying that humans are better than apes.

I would never say something so painfully and pathetically stupid since (as you’ve been told now at least 10x by multiple members) humans ARE apes. 

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Humans are apes.  If I understand your question correctly, the answer is mans ancestors like Australopithecus and Homo Erectus died out.

I saw a Homo Erectus drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's.  His hair was perfect.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, TheVat said:

I saw a Homo Erectus drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's.  His hair was perfect.

Looking at human development is like looking at rainbows; you can only see the 'separations' from a distance. In this case temporal.

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Humans and apes are different. Humans are no better no worse. There's no place for comparison. Like red is not better than green

Why are you here? You already have all the beliefs you want and already know that any contradiction to what you believe is wrong. So other than annoying the people here what could you possibly hope to achieve?

[StringJunky]

Science cannot argue against faith. Faith, after all, is about commitment to a particular cause, regardless of evidence that may contradict its existence.

 

Edited January 9 by StringJunky

[TheVat]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 

Never could make much sense of this oft-quoted Biblical definition, in how it worked evidence in there.

Many hoped for the 5 sigma results on the Higgs boson at the LHC, which were evidence of things not seen.  Hmm. 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 

Never could make much sense of this oft-quoted Biblical definition, in how it worked evidence in there.

Many hoped for the 5 sigma results on the Higgs boson at the LHC, which were evidence of things not seen.  Hmm. 

In the context of religion, a demand for faith is a demand for ideological tunnel vision.

[exchemist]

13 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Science cannot argue against faith. Faith, after all, is about commitment to a particular cause, regardless of evidence that may contradict its existence.

 

Not sure I agree. We have faith in the theories of science, after all. These theories are not facts but provisional models, yet we trust them - or many of the better established ones at least. That is faith, surely?

But different from religious faith, certainly. 

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, exchemist said:

We have faith in the theories of science, after all. These theories are not facts but provisional models, yet we trust them - or many of the better established ones at least. That is faith, surely?

@Phi for All hits on this topic regularly, but it's NOT faith... Trust as a term to describe this works just fine. We trust it, and we trust it because evidence suggests we should, and that trust is rewarded because the evidence keeps affirming it.

We trust the sun will rise tomorrow morning (or that the earth will rotate in a way that makes the sun once more visible to us over the horizon) and we have evidence that informs this trust.

Faith, however, is different. Faith is continuing to believe despite the evidence. When the evidence contradicts that faith, the evidence must be wrong or dismissed.

That overlaps in some ways with the concept of trust, but it's not informed or updated in the same way that our trust in scientific models is. The trust is provisional, too... Faith is not. 

[Luc Turpin]

17 hours ago, CharonY said:

Then the do not understand the impact of selection. And I have not seen that really reflected in most of the posts (with one or two exceptions). Folks have said that as a whole evolution has no goal, which is true, but that is not the same as saying it is random. 

 

No the DNA is left intact, for the most part. There are some exceptions, but if the article is what I think it is about, they are talking about RNA editing. RNA is basically a copy based on DNA (using different sugar and one different base). However, all eukaryotes process the resulting RNA. The canonical knowledge is the excision of introns, leaving a mature RNA with exons. There are also chemical modifications, caused post-transcriptional modification such as A-I editing by ADAR. What has been found in cephalopods is therefore not really something unique as such. I believe the main surprise is that canonically one assumed most of this editing does not really change the resulting protein sequence (i.e. they are neutral), but in cephalopods have a much higher frequency of these changes. 

It is not quite clear why (or perhaps the results in other organisms are somewhat underestimated, it can be tricky to as it varies from tissue to tissue) .

Agree, no goal is not the same as saying it is random.

DNA manipulation is the key factor, not whether that DNA remains intact or not. For example, if I exercise, a whole lot of physiological effects occur. One of them is that methylation groups are added onto certain DNA molecules. Understood that this changes the activity of a DNA segment without changing the sequence. During transcription (hope I am using the right term), "tagged" DNA molecules are "repressed-silenced", which brings about a different outcome than if they were not “repressed-silenced". There is good evidence that the outcome is better health. And so, this is DNA manipulation at one of its’ finest hours and seems, at least for me, to play away from predestination.

As Stephen Hawking once famously said - “I have noticed that even those who assert that everything is predestined and that we can change nothing about it still look both ways before they cross the street.”

Genes load the gun, lifestyle fires it.

There is intention to do or not to do.

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

@Phi for All hits on this topic regularly, but it's NOT faith... Trust as a term to describe this works just fine. We trust it, and we trust it because evidence suggests we should, and that trust is rewarded because the evidence keeps affirming it.

We trust the sun will rise tomorrow morning (or that the earth will rotate in a way that makes the sun once more visible to us over the horizon) and we have evidence that informs this trust.

Faith, however, is different. Faith is continuing to believe despite the evidence. When the evidence contradicts that faith, the evidence must be wrong or dismissed.

That overlaps in some ways with the concept of trust, but it's not informed or updated in the same way that our trust in scientific models is. The trust is provisional, too... Faith is not. 

Agree to all, especially that "trust is provisional too".

Provisional to evidence that is!

[exchemist]

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

@Phi for All hits on this topic regularly, but it's NOT faith... Trust as a term to describe this works just fine. We trust it, and we trust it because evidence suggests we should, and that trust is rewarded because the evidence keeps affirming it.

We trust the sun will rise tomorrow morning (or that the earth will rotate in a way that makes the sun once more visible to us over the horizon) and we have evidence that informs this trust.

Faith, however, is different. Faith is continuing to believe despite the evidence. When the evidence contradicts that faith, the evidence must be wrong or dismissed.

That overlaps in some ways with the concept of trust, but it's not informed or updated in the same way that our trust in scientific models is. The trust is provisional, too... Faith is not. 

Interesting.

My OED says, for meaning (1), "Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness etc of a person ; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). It does go on to say "in early use, only with reference to religious subjects; this is still the prevalent application and often colours the wider use".  So not exclusively to be used in religious contexts, though it often is.

There is nothing at all, in any of the meanings, to suggest that belief despite evidence to the contrary is in any way intrinsic to the meaning of the word. (In fact, its use in everyday speech makes it obvious that cannot be the case.)

So I think you have made that bit up.  😄

[CharonY]

19 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

DNA manipulation is the key factor, not whether that DNA remains intact or not. For example, if I exercise, a whole lot of physiological effects occur. One of them is that methylation groups are added onto certain DNA molecules. Understood that this changes the activity of a DNA segment without changing the sequence. During transcription (hope I am using the right term), "tagged" DNA molecules are "repressed-silenced", which brings about a different outcome than if they were not “repressed-silenced". There is good evidence that the outcome is better health. And so, this is DNA manipulation at one of its’ finest hours and seems, at least for me, to play away from predestination.

What you are talking about are generally not related to evolution as they occur only within the organism and are (generally) not transmitted to the next generation via the germline (there is evidence for some exceptions, though).

In broader terms, it is important to note that DNA itself is not doing anything. Simplified, their main role is a data repository that needs to be first transcribed into mRNA and then translated into proteins. The latter are doing all the work. Obviously our cells (and by extension our body) need to be able to address changes in the environment, each cell type has to fulfill different functions despite all having the same DNA. So what is happening is that transcription/translation is regulated via a wide range of internal and external cues resulting e.g. different protein compositions in different cell types or adaptive changes in response to some environmental signals.

However, this dynamic is within an organism and is not transmitted to the next generation (e.g. in a Lamarckian sense).

[zapatos]

21 minutes ago, exchemist said:

There is nothing at all, in any of the meanings, to suggest that belief despite evidence to the contrary is in any way intrinsic to the meaning of the word.

Well, maybe none of the meanings you've explored...

Quote

Wrathall explained that the key issue is a disparity between faith and belief that most religious people take for granted. Our beliefs are things we take to be true based on our logic and experiences. If we learn new information, our beliefs can change. For example, if we believe that it will rain on a given day, but the day comes and the skies are clear, then we will probably change our belief that it will rain.

Faith is a different thing entirely. “It’s commonplace to treat belief and faith as synonyms . . . but there are important differences,” Wrathall said. Faith involves reliance and trust, and it endures in the face of doubts, whereas belief is simply something we take to be true. “I can have faith in things or people without a corresponding belief, and I can believe things that I don’t have faith in,” he said. “That’s why I can say that I believe the war in Ukraine is inhumane, but I wouldn’t say that I have faith that the war in Ukraine is inhumane.”

https://hum.byu.edu/difference-between-faith-and-belief