Evolving Evolution

[studiot]

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

Again, more advanced organisms can intentionally modify their surroundings, creating feedback loops that impact evolutionary outcomes.

Are you implying that less advanced organisms cannot modify their surroundings ?

(Note I already asked you about the intentionally bit and you did not reply)

As for 'intentional evolution' there are plenty of examples where two species have become beneficially adapted to the needs of each other, without any apparent intention. There is a very good example in one of the Wiki articles I linked to concerning ants and a certain thorn bush.

 

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

DNA mutations are random changes that occur by chance,

Do you understand the meanings of random and chance and the difference between them ?

If you say they are changes that means that they are changed from something ?

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

Natural selection then "selects" the mutations that help organisms survive and reproduce, while those that are detrimental are eliminated.

You miss the entire point of natural selection since the process you describe cannot work unless the mutation (beneficial or otherwise)  is capable of being tranmitted to later generations.

[swansont]

32 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Yes, I agree with both points in your post. Without critiquing your criticism of me, I simplified my argument to highlight that there may be intention behind the evolutionary process, rather than it being purely mechanical.

What specifically do you mean by intention? 

[TheVat]

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

However, even with the notion of only being encompassed by genes, single-celled organisms eventually evolved into more complex life forms, which challenges the conventional idea that evolution is purely unintentional,

The overwhelming majority of species on Earth were, and remain, single-celled, and did not eventually evolve into multicellular organisms.  This suggests there is no hidden teleology, as some organisms remain single-celled quite successfully adapted to their environments while others experienced pressures towards the cooperative aggregation, chemotaxis, and cell specialization that multicellular forms bring.  This article in Science may be helpful in looking at the transitions to multicellularity.

https://www.science.org/content/article/momentous-transition-multicellular-life-may-not-have-been-so-hard-after-all

There seems to be nothing particularly miraculous or difficult about this transition, given certain conditions, and many single-celled species are in fact already somewhat prepared for it.

Genetic comparisons between simple multicellular organisms and their single-celled relatives have revealed that much of the molecular equipment needed for cells to band together and coordinate their activities may have been in place well before multicellularity evolved.

Edited Monday at 06:12 PM by TheVat
fubar

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

1-Are you implying that less advanced organisms cannot modify their surroundings ?

2- (Note I already asked you about the intentionally bit and you did not reply)

3- As for 'intentional evolution' there are plenty of examples where two species have become beneficially adapted to the needs of each other, without any apparent intention. There is a very good example in one of the Wiki articles I linked to concerning ants and a certain thorn bush.

 

4- Do you understand the meanings of random and chance and the difference between them ?

5-If you say they are changes that means that they are changed from something ?

6-You miss the entire point of natural selection since the process you describe cannot work unless the mutation (beneficial or otherwise)  is capable of being tranmitted to later generations.

1- I could argue that all organisms use both learned and innate behaviors to interact with their environment, but that would be controversial. Therefore, I'll assert that lower-level organisms shape their environment primarily through non-learned behaviors that occur by chance and contribute to their survival.

2- I believe I discussed intentional behaviors at length in my post, with imitation through learning being one of the key examples.

3- I also provided 16 references that suggest there is more to this than meets the eye. They indicate that skills are indeed learned and passed down through generations.

4- In my humble opinion, both random and chance essentially serve the same purpose.

5- I don't understand the question!

6- If I don’t fully grasp the need for traits to be transmitted through generations, why do I mention the gene pool?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What specifically do you mean by intention? 

Intention to thrive and survive, which occurred in the begining through chance and not by intention

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Intention to thrive and survive, which occurred in the begining through chance and not by intention

Using the word in its definition doesn’t really clarify much. 

What about intent to survive would circumvent natural selection? 

[studiot]

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

4- In my humble opinion, both random and chance essentially serve the same purpose.

There it is again that hidden agenda  -  purpose.

Interesting that you link either chance or random to any purpose.

[Luc Turpin]

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

The overwhelming majority of species on Earth were, and remain, single-celled, and did not eventually evolve into multicellular organisms.  This suggests there is no hidden teleology, as some organisms remain single-celled quite successfully adapted to their environments while others experienced pressures towards the cooperative aggregation, chemotaxis, and cell specialization that multicellular forms bring.  This article in Science may be helpful in looking at the transitions to multicellularity.

https://www.science.org/content/article/momentous-transition-multicellular-life-may-not-have-been-so-hard-after-all

There seems to be nothing particularly miraculous or difficult about this transition, given certain conditions, and many single-celled species are in fact already somewhat prepared for it.

Genetic comparisons between simple multicellular organisms and their single-celled relatives have revealed that much of the molecular equipment needed for cells to band together and coordinate their activities may have been in place well before multicellularity evolved.

The overwhelming majority of species on Earth were, and remain, single-celled, and did not eventually evolve into multicellular organisms.  This suggests there is no hidden teleology, as some organisms remain single-celled quite successfully adapted to their environments while others experienced pressures towards the cooperative aggregation, chemotaxis, and cell specialization that multicellular forms bring.  This article in Science may be helpful in looking at the transitions to multicellularity.

https://www.science.org/content/article/momentous-transition-multicellular-life-may-not-have-been-so-hard-after-all

There seems to be nothing particularly miraculous or difficult about this transition, given certain conditions, and many single-celled species are in fact already somewhat prepared for it.

Genetic comparisons between simple multicellular organisms and their single-celled relatives have revealed that much of the molecular equipment needed for cells to band together and coordinate their activities may have been in place well before multicellularity evolved.

This finding is truly surprising: the genetic program and molecular machinery were already in place long before they were needed. It almost suggests that life was "pre-equipped" with the essential tools, waiting for the right moment to evolve into greater complexity. 

Another intriguing discovery is that many genes seem to have emerged on Earth far earlier than traditional theories suggest. This challenges the prevailing scientific timeline, once again possibly presenting the notion of genes existing before their necessity became apparent. Source

Both results challenge mainstream evolutionary biology. So, are we on the verge of a shift in our understanding of biology, or are we merely encountering blips on the radar screen?

6 hours ago, swansont said:

What about intent to survive would circumvent natural selection? 

"It wouldn't bypass natural selection; rather, it would undergo the same evolutionary process, but with a distinct result.

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Interesting that you link either chance or random to any purpose.

I associate intention with purpose, viewing it as deliberate and meaningful rather than a product of chance or randomness.

Edited yesterday at 12:41 AM by Luc Turpin

[swansont]

32 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

This challenges the prevailing scientific timeline, once again possibly presenting the notion of genes existing before their necessity became apparent

Both results challenge mainstream evolutionary biology.

 

No. There’s nothing that says a gene has to appear only after it would be an advantage. Neutral mutations exist. Eye color is a common example. If, somehow, blue eyes conferred an advantage, we wouldn’t have to wait for a mutation.

33 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

It wouldn't bypass natural selection; rather, it would undergo the same evolutionary process, but with a distinct result.

How so? 

[CharonY]

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

No. There’s nothing that says a gene has to appear only after it would be an advantage. Neutral mutations exist. Eye color is a common example. If, somehow, blue eyes conferred an advantage, we wouldn’t have to wait for a mutation.

How so? 

Not only that, if genes only arose out of necessity, it would invalidate classic genetics as well as the fundamentals of our current understanding of evolution. It would suggest that inheritable units only arise after interaction with the environment in a Lamarckian way, which would obviously turn our understanding of genetics on its head.

It would also to a large degree invalidate or at least heavily change the idea of selection, which postulates a shaping force on the gene pool, whereas a gene pool which would generate only beneficial traits is already magically pre-selected...?

[Luc Turpin]

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

Not only that, if genes only arose out of necessity, it would invalidate classic genetics as well as the fundamentals of our current understanding of evolution. It would suggest that inheritable units only arise after interaction with the environment in a Lamarckian way, which would obviously turn our understanding of genetics on its head.

It would also to a large degree invalidate or at least heavily change the idea of selection, which postulates a shaping force on the gene pool, whereas a gene pool which would generate only beneficial traits is already magically pre-selected...?

Many evolutionary scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins, have argued that gene evolution is not always linear. These scientists suggest that the process of evolution involves a variety of mechanisms that go beyond direct necessity. Some of these include neutral mutations, exaptation and gene regulation. These mechanisms together help explain the evolutionary process, showing that it's not always a simple case of genes evolving directly to solve an immediate problem (i.e., necessity). The path of evolution can be more roundabout and involve repurposing existing genes or structures.

My concern centers on how such complexity—particularly the shift from single-celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms—can arise "by chance" through evolutionary processes. This is, I believe, a major question in evolutionary biology, especially considering the high degree of coordination required for multicellularity. This transition from single-celled to multi-celled requires not only the development of specialized cells, but also complex communication and regulatory systems to maintain cooperation. This process likely involved many steps that, some argue, could have been facilitated by gradual gene changes. However, the idea that this could occur purely by chance raises concerns.

The analogy of a monkey typing a Shakespeare novel is often used by critics of evolution to suggest that the probability of highly complex structures emerging by chance is very low. This is a common critique by proponents of Intelligent Design (ID), such as Behe, Dembski, and Meyer. They argue that the complexity of certain biological systems seems too improbable to have evolved through gradual, natural processes without some form of directed guidance.

Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, the presence of complex genetic programs before the emergence of multicellular animals, that genes involved in embryonic development and regulatory processes were already in place long before the appearance of complex animals,  that many regulatory genes have pre-metazoan origin (implying that the common ancestor of all animals may have already possessed a highly complex genome), or that viral replicative modules could have originated in the precellular era, are all examples that raise concerns as to the standard view of evolution.

To summarize, my critique centers on the idea that while genes do not arise solely out of necessity, the complexity involved in the evolution of genetic systems requires an incredible amount of "pre-adaptation" through exaptation, neutral mutations, and gene regulation. The probability of this occurring "by chance" through natural selection alone is akin to asking a monkey to type out a Shakespearean novel.

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

The analogy of a monkey typing a Shakespeare novel is often used by critics of evolution to suggest that the probability of highly complex structures emerging by chance is very low.

These critics of evolution typically have an agenda and also have a poor understanding of evolution (partly because what they “learned” came from people with a poor understanding)

Argument from incredulity isn’t really a counterargument.

[Luc Turpin]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

These critics of evolution typically have an agenda and also have a poor understanding of evolution (partly because what they “learned” came from people with a poor understanding)

Argument from incredulity isn’t really a counterargument.

Notwhitstanding agenda and understanding, how can random, stochastic events—such as unpredictable genetic mutations and gradual genetic changes—give rise to complex and stable systems capable of sustaining life as we see in nature? Even when considering natural selection, cumulative evolutionary processes, robustness, symbiosis, self-organization, and neutral evolution, how can this occur? As a non-expert to this subject, some of the terms listed seem more like post hoc descriptive explanations for observed phenomena. Words like "selection," "cumulative steps," "robustness," "symbiosis," and "organization" seem out of place when applied to a self-perpetuating random process. They seem more appropriate for a system with intentionality.

[dimreepr]

On 12/20/2024 at 12:48 PM, Luc Turpin said:

In the course of my contributions to various scientific forums, I want to emphasize that the ideas that I presented are the work of scientists, not my own original concepts. These scientists propose alternative views that challenge the prevailing scientific consensus. The knowledge I share comes from these individuals, who have developed hypotheses based on rigorous research and empirical data. My role has been to try and convey their ideas, often using their own words, definitions, and explanations.

@Phi for All is right, you lack the pyramid of knowledge needed to understand the subject at hand, essentially all you do is quote. and Wittginstien took a dim view of that.

[TheVat]

7 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

To summarize, my critique centers on the idea that while genes do not arise solely out of necessity, the complexity involved in the evolution of genetic systems requires an incredible amount of "pre-adaptation" through exaptation, neutral mutations, and gene regulation. The probability of this occurring "by chance" through natural selection alone is akin to asking a monkey to type out a Shakespearean novel.

It's important that you understand that most mutations are neutral - deleterious mutation vanish quickly and beneficial mutations are rare.  So the majority to be found are neutral.  Many neutral mutations are simply codons which will yield the same amino acid.  All these neutral mutations are constantly there, rising or dropping in frequency due to genetic drift, and providing plenty of chances for adaptation.  A mutation for prolonged lactase production could be in random genetic drift in N Europe, until an environmental change causes widespread protein shortages and a new selective advantage to adults who can digest milk.  Feathers were originally a mutation in hair production which first proved adaptive for generating greater warmth.  Later, exaptation selected for a function, flight, different from the original adaptation.  These changes are not purposeful pre-adaptations, they are just circumstances favoring alleles formerly neutral - in small populations, they might have drifted to either loss or fixation - a stochastic process.

 There's no "incredible amount of pre-adaptation," just a robust variety of alleles already there and now and then proving to be handy.  This happens as a natural thing where you have the genetic diversity provided by neutral mutations in all their abundance.

Edited 11 hours ago by TheVat

[studiot]

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

how can random, stochastic events—such as unpredictable genetic mutations and gradual genetic changes—give rise to complex and stable systems capable of sustaining life as we see in nature?

Do you really want to know or are you just arguing from incredulity born of ignorance of probability?

 

[dimreepr]

Nothing is more important for teaching us to understand the concepts we have than to construct fictitious ones.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

how can this occur?

This is just sealioning. A seemingly innocuous question, but one that sidesteps the responsibility you have to learn the material. Any suggestion that it’s untrue is also argument from incredulity.

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

They seem more appropriate for a system with intentionality.

And you own the burden of proof for showing this to be true. It’s not the default, even if evolution weren’t true. And you’re not getting there by cherry-picking studies and presenting narratives out of context.