Open Evolution

[foodchain]

Is there a finite amount of quantum positions or states that would also put a finite limit on all the possible forms to open ended evolution? Basically does QM put a cap on the limit to which life can evolve into?

[iNow]

Basically does QM put a cap on the limit to which life can evolve into?

 

Hmmm... If it did, I can't see us reaching that "cap" before our sun expends all of it's energy. I'm just responding with gut feeling here. I haven't done any sort of calculations or anything to support this, nor do I really think there can be such a cap, but that's just IMO.

[Edtharan]

Combinatronics

 

Ok, first, are you are talking about the evolution of animals (rather than a quantum system)?

 

Assuming that you are talking about biological evolution:

 

The genome of an animal is made up of 4 different types of Bases (cytosine, guanine, adenine, thymine or C,G,A & T).

 

Now with 4 bases, a genome 2 bases long can have one of 16 different combinations (4^2). For a genome 3 bases long the number of combination becomes 64 (4^3). For 4 base pairs it rises to 256 (4^4).

 

Now an organism can have several million base pairs (4^several million ).

 

Now, not every combination will produce a viable organism, but there is enough that the number is still astronomically huge.

[foodchain]

Combinatronics

 

Ok, first, are you are talking about the evolution of animals (rather than a quantum system)?

 

Assuming that you are talking about biological evolution:

 

The genome of an animal is made up of 4 different types of Bases (cytosine, guanine, adenine, thymine or C,G,A & T).

 

Now with 4 bases, a genome 2 bases long can have one of 16 different combinations (4^2). For a genome 3 bases long the number of combination becomes 64 (4^3). For 4 base pairs it rises to 256 (4^4).

 

Now an organism can have several million base pairs (4^several million ).

 

Now, not every combination will produce a viable organism, but there is enough that the number is still astronomically huge.

 

I am not sure, but I do not think the genome describes in full detail all the possibilities in a giving organism in terms of say molecular interaction.

 

I know the numbers are huge, but even if its utterly relative I don’t think you can have an infinite number of quantum states for instance, of course I don’t know for sure. So if that’s true for instance with say chemistry, not knowing exactly what can exist in terms of matter for the universe or what not, then open ended evolution must obviously then also have a cap or limit.

 

 

Hmmm... If it did, I can't see us reaching that "cap" before our sun expends all of it's energy. I'm just responding with gut feeling here. I haven't done any sort of calculations or anything to support this, nor do I really think there can be such a cap, but that's just IMO.

 

Sorry iNow I am being purely speculative I have no idea what life can or cannot do. I would think that life will surely have some troubles when the sun decides to die out.

[Edtharan]

I am not sure, but I do not think the genome describes in full detail all the possibilities in a giving organism in terms of say molecular interaction.

You are right, there is more going on in an organism than just what the genome describes. But that just adds to the sample space.

 

Even if we just consider the interactions between DNA, with all organisms that have a genome size 100,00 base pairs to 1,000,000 base pairs (as the length of the DNA is also a variable which multiplies the number of potential organisms), then I would doubt that even if you were to use all the atoms in the universe (that are needed to construct the DNA strands - let alone the organisms that the DNA would produce) that you could actually constgruct all of them.

 

If this is so, and there is not enough matter to even build the DNA for these oganisms, that means that the universe would not be able to explore all variations.

 

Mathematically we can describe them, but it would be physically impossible for all of them to exist.

 

If you open up the amount length of DNA strands to include up to the maximum known (not even the theoretical maximum), then even considering the age of the universe (and it's potential age), then it is quite possible that it would be physically impossible for the universe to explore all potential DNA configurations for organisms.

 

Where as there might be a theoretical/mathematical cap, there might therefore not be a physical cap. Evolution might be physically open ended, but be mathematically closed.

[foodchain]

You are right, there is more going on in an organism than just what the genome describes. But that just adds to the sample space.

 

Even if we just consider the interactions between DNA, with all organisms that have a genome size 100,00 base pairs to 1,000,000 base pairs (as the length of the DNA is also a variable which multiplies the number of potential organisms), then I would doubt that even if you were to use all the atoms in the universe (that are needed to construct the DNA strands - let alone the organisms that the DNA would produce) that you could actually constgruct all of them.

 

If this is so, and there is not enough matter to even build the DNA for these oganisms, that means that the universe would not be able to explore all variations.

 

Mathematically we can describe them, but it would be physically impossible for all of them to exist.

 

If you open up the amount length of DNA strands to include up to the maximum known (not even the theoretical maximum), then even considering the age of the universe (and it's potential age), then it is quite possible that it would be physically impossible for the universe to explore all potential DNA configurations for organisms.

 

Where as there might be a theoretical/mathematical cap, there might therefore not be a physical cap. Evolution might be physically open ended, but be mathematically closed.

 

Its just that though in that the connection to evolution while clinically sane is just reduced to DNA in this instance I don’t know if that is all life can have of course. Another is interaction also has an environmental aspect, so you would have to factor that in though. I do not know for sure but separation of such might have to also go to various stages of metabolic activity or development, either one I am sure would be fine. Some species that use DNA have different RNA, giving the reality of evo-devo also you find the picture becoming more distorted in terms of being a straight forward enumeration. Cells of course simply from the basis of histone also along with gene regulation for instance, then the relationship of just that from all the various cells in a body.

 

Life seems to be very fine tuned, this becomes something problematic to me when you then would have to find a way to route all this into enough homeostasis to keep the organism alive and well in any giving circumstance. Now thanks to Darwinian thinking such as fitness using genes as some discrete amount to measure such its not all in the dark, but the reality to me of epistasis via all the cells of an organism through a proteome which is built around survival in environmental conditions for whatever that leads to be it spores or a hyena is something very complex.

 

I just wonder through all of this where mutation rates, spots of activity and so on come to exist purely as in 100% by chance of if use of something in time leads to more resistant or stable establishment of something, which of course I think would be purely ecological really or evidence of natural selection, more so as time continues. In evo-devo for instance the bauplan is highly conserved, why?

 

Another instance is say senses. Sight for instance depending on how it wired into say a particular organism on its own I think would give it a definite edge in some situations say such as reacting to a predator, so just that change I think in time could alter so much.

 

Then of course you have so much bulk information to work though such as the large and growing list of say biological processes.

[mooeypoo]

I'm not sure that relating to evolution as something with an 'end' -- as in a 'target' or something like that - is valid. Evolution is simply the CHANGE of an organism in relation to its environment, so I can't imagine what sort of 'cap' there can be.

 

I think it would be perfectly viable for the process of evolution that a certain species 'reverts' back a few "stages" in its evolution, if its environment changes back to what it used to be.

 

For that matter, heres an 'example' idea -- let's say an organism longer fingers because its environment had food that required narrow-access, and therefore creatures with longer fingers had more chance of getting food -> had more chance of living and multiplying --> the species developed longer fingers.

 

But then, after a long long time evolutionary-wise, another food became abundant that didn't require any of the use of long fingers.. or even was 'best' accessed with bulky hands. The evolutionary process would 'preffer' creatures with shorter fingers, which - in our view - would 'revert' the evolution "back".

 

But the true way of looking at it is that the creatures evolved BOTH times.. evolution is the CHANGE of an organism, not necessarily this 'ladder' with a 'target' to get to.

 

~moo

[foodchain]

I'm not sure that relating to evolution as something with an 'end' -- as in a 'target' or something like that - is valid. Evolution is simply the CHANGE of an organism in relation to its environment, so I can't imagine what sort of 'cap' there can be.

 

I think it would be perfectly viable for the process of evolution that a certain species 'reverts' back a few "stages" in its evolution, if its environment changes back to what it used to be.

 

For that matter, heres an 'example' idea -- let's say an organism longer fingers because its environment had food that required narrow-access, and therefore creatures with longer fingers had more chance of getting food -> had more chance of living and multiplying --> the species developed longer fingers.

 

But then, after a long long time evolutionary-wise, another food became abundant that didn't require any of the use of long fingers.. or even was 'best' accessed with bulky hands. The evolutionary process would 'preffer' creatures with shorter fingers, which - in our view - would 'revert' the evolution "back".

 

But the true way of looking at it is that the creatures evolved BOTH times.. evolution is the CHANGE of an organism, not necessarily this 'ladder' with a 'target' to get to.

 

~moo

I don’t know about life reverting so much, as in I don’t know about that:D I know life for instance which is easy to see has vestigial structures, which were say items of physiology once in use lost to evolutionary change or what not. This is also evident down to a molecular level, all of which allows for forensics!

 

The elongation of a limb by itself say a digit and even in that example probably has some kind of name, it eludes me, but the Aye-aye is a good example of what you are talking about I think. Its story though is kind of sad as mythology of sorts has it being taking down pretty much as a species when coupled with other factors.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aye-aye

 

I don’t look at life evolving as a ladder, but more or less I think evolution is really nothing more then a product of natural selection over time operating on life to produce stable organisms to there respective environments. This of course is a rather broad meaning to it, but still if a human cant keep a suitable environment alive on say some expedition to the poles he or she will still perish all be it slowly and painfully in most cases such as feet/toes decaying under frostbite or other extremities or the face, I think those ones go first typically.

[Fred56]

Evolution's function is selection?

[mooeypoo]

Evolution's function is selection?

 

Evolution works *through* natural selection.

 

It's not "random" mutations, it's "random mutations" chosen by natural selection. So it's a selective process, according to the environment.

 

I don’t look at life evolving as a ladder, but more or less I think evolution is really nothing more then a product of natural selection over time operating on life to produce stable organisms to there respective environments. This of course is a rather broad meaning to it, but still if a human cant keep a suitable environment alive on say some expedition to the poles he or she will still perish all be it slowly and painfully in most cases such as feet/toes decaying under frostbite or other extremities or the face, I think those ones go first typically.

 

It's not a ladder, as there is no "climbing up" or "going down", it's a process, with no "target" or "end goal". The fact we are what we are is because our environment selected specific mutations as benefitial; if our environment changes, other mutations may be discovered as beneficial and the process will change. There is no "goal" to it, so it can't really be a ladder.

 

It's more of a 'tree'. By the way, I strongly suggest watching Dawkins' fascinating lecture "Growing up in the Universe" (containing his famous "climbing up mount improbable" lecture) available *officially* (hence, not 'hacked' or 'stolen' ) through his website: http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse

 

He explains very very eloquently about the process of evolution, and how organs were created, animals developed certain attributes, and the bunk of 'irreducible complexity'. Worth-a-watchin'.

 

~moo

[Fred56]

Life, (all forms of life), is the derivative of the evolutionary function. Each organism has only the evolved set of "properties" of life (its phenotype), to "deal with" the current (instantaneous) conditions, to face the challenges of finding a source of food, and being able to exploit it. To take the necessary risks of choosing: to expend energy chasing something, or conserve energy and wait for it to come to you.

So evolution is the process, a mapping, and life is the domain and range.

[mooeypoo]

Life, (all forms of life), is the derivative of the evolutionary function. Each organism has only the evolved set of "properties" of life (its phenotype), to "deal with" the current (instantaneous) conditions, to face the challenges of finding a source of food, and being able to exploit it. To take the necessary risks of choosing: to expend energy chasing something, or conserve energy and wait for it to come to you.

 

... You make a statement that I disagree with, which is fine, but since I don't understand where you bring this from (substantiate? uhm.. something?) I am having trouble even addressing it.

 

The fact *YOU* believe that all forms of life are derivatives of evolutionary "function" doesn't make it so.. unless I misunderstood you, in which case please explain and bring examples to what you're saying.

 

So evolution is the process, a mapping, and life is the domain and range.

And then you finish up with this statement,which seems to me to be contradicting your first one... Evolution is a name for a process. Just like "raining" is a name of a phenomena, and growth is a name of another process... it can't have meaning just because you "want" it to..

 

Explain please, I am not sure I understood what you mean here.

 

~moo

[foodchain]

Evolution's function is selection?

 

 

I would have to say so for a couple of reasons. First the current understanding of physics and chemistry all the way down to a QM level has change being something pretty normal currently in the universe. Say a star for example or stars, but most everything has some degree to difference to it, such as studying geology and finding out that type of rock is far more then you would think in regards to actual types. So again to reference back if its physical phenomena executing in time that leads to say the grand canyon, well then its just physics then in some mechanistic way overall doing such. So life to be life would have to satisfy this, realizing that environment can play such a role in this then obviously its those physical laws that currently govern physical phenomena occurring in time. I don’t know how much more basic to say it. I think to say otherwise is to suggest that the laws of physics and or chemistry do not apply to life, which I think is safe to say is false. So in reality mixing two elements to produce a chemical can come in various shapes and sizes, but mixing two elements will produce on a regular and mechanical basis another exact type compound in many ways but not all, such is how much.

 

Now not exactly sure but environments of this on concentrations of matter/energy interacting produces a wide array of environments, but not all of them happen to be fundamental to the point of being some quark gluon plasma if that exists or strangelets. For instance the various generations of subatomic reality already can come in exactly that, generations with an ability to be shown that it exists. So for in the solar system alone to have such a great deal of variation even in planets or moons down to trying to predict weather or why hurricanes typically only occur on certain parts of our planet I think shows this. So I don’t understand why you would separate people from the mix. So I think that if humans happen to be physical, like the rest of normal life, then why study it as something different and yes it surely is a product of just that.

 

Now to make the jump to life itself that physical variation exists but its in the parameters of physical reality that only parts of such variation happen to be selected, not only this but selected on a normal basis ranging millions of years and more such as in features of the bauplan, but on the same basis not being absolute as to have no variation in say terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems shows just that physical reality. This can be studied empirically and quantifiably of course both showing nothing but this reality of life which is selection by the environment being the current and constant form of such a physical reality or constant. Change occurs, not all of it makes it, some of it can make it for a long time but not as long as some others, plus variation itself is a constant even if life has it reduced to a small amount of what it could be. This is a physical reality of life that has been proven again, natural selection or selection which in itself is reflective of an environmental variable in a major way, I wont go as far as to say everything, I don’t know everything, but for what we can study I would have to say its just about all that exists in regards to defining life overall. Now I know out few thousand year recorded cultures might have some pretty bring ideas, but those have not stood up to billions of years of environment yet.

 

So yes, if its by physics that all things can occur great and small currently, then obviously its that same thing giving rise to life via how it physically works in reality. Giving the actual complexity of reality in comparison to our tiny ape like brains I would say we might understand this fully tomorrow or in say three million years, they both sound like good predictions on my part.

 

IS that good enough?

[Fred56]

I am not sure I understood what you mean here.

What's a function, isn't that a name we give to some "thing"? What's wrong with saying "evolutionary function", then saying "evolution is the process"?

[mooeypoo]

What's a function, isn't that a name we give to some "thing"? What's wrong with saying "evolutionary function", then saying "evolution is the process"?

 

Function implies purpose. It has a 'function' means it has some purpose to it.

 

It's not *wrong* saying that, it's just not clear. Evolution is a process with no goal or purpose.

 

It just HAPPENS, we observed it, and decided to name it.

 

Ces tout.

 

~moo

[Fred56]

The fact *YOU* believe that all forms of life are derivatives of evolutionary "function" doesn't make it so.

OK, the fact that you believe I can't doesn't make it so, either.

[mooeypoo]

OK, the fact that you believe I can't doesn't make it so, either.

 

Of course it doesn't, but I don't just believe, I have the definition of the Theory of Evolution to show you:

 

The core of Darwin's theory is natural selection, a process that occurs over successive generations and is defined as the differential reproduction of genotypes.

Natural selection requires heritable variation in a given trait, and differential survival and reproduction associated with possession of that trait.

Examples of natural selection are well-documented, both by observation and through the fossil record.

Selection acts on the frequency of traits, and can take the form of stabilizing, directional, or diversifying selection.

((Source: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html))

 

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

((Source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02))

 

Evolution is the PROCESS where the organism *changes* in time. Natural Selection is the *tool* that explains *WHICH* changes/anomalies/mutations are kept, and which are discarded.

 

So:

 

Evolution is the theory that states organisms changed through time. Humans "started out" as something that was DIFFERENT, and - in time - changed and changed and changed and today we call ourselves 'humans'.

 

When you want to understand HOW certain changes occured, or, alternatively, when you want to figure out WHY certain changes were 'preffered' by nature at the expense of other changes, you refer to the TOOL of "Natural Selection", that defines *what* is kept, and HOW the changes are done.

 

One says "change", the other defines "how". It's not cause and effect, and it does not have an ultimate purpose. Nature did not "plan" for human beings from the beginning of life, and it did not "say to itself" -- "oh look! Amoeba! it's going to make one HECK of a person one day a few billion years from now".

 

I know that's not what you meant, I'm exaggerating to make my point. But I would appreciate it if you substantiate and explain the points you're making. My point about "you believing it doesn't make it so" was not meant to belittle you, it was meant to convey my confusion as to where you're getting this from.

 

And I will repeat myself once more, here, because that's getting quite frustrating. You're arguing against a scientific definition that is pretty simply put; read Darwin, and you will see he refered to Natural Selection as a tool as well, within evolution. The reason I keep recommending Richard Dawkins' video is not to send you away from the debate; it's to show you where the proof of the explanation IS. The video is EXTREMELY well put, it's substantiating itself repeatedly, and it very simple and interesting.

 

~moo

[Fred56]

I still can't see why saying it's a function with a domain and range (life), is a problem, isn't a process a function?

Isn't selection something an agent or a process "performs"?

 

The only thing we know about that doesn't seem to be some kind of process is the instantaneous 'co-operation' or interaction between entangled states at the quantum level.

[mooeypoo]

I still can't see why saying it's a function with a domain and range (life), is a problem, isn't a process a function?

I didn't say it's a problem, I disagreed with you. There's a difference.

 

Isn't selection something an agent or a process "performs"?

When a verb, yes. When is part of "Natural Selection" the NAME of the TOOL for the PROCESS of evolution, No. It's not.

 

To have something "perform" something, there needs to be that "agent" -- and there is no "Agent" in evolution, not the way the word "Agent" is usually used.

 

If you mean 'perform', 'function' and 'agent' *NOT* in their COMMON usage and connotation, then you need to re-define them, so I can understand what you mean. Otherwise, I just simply disagree.

 

Using "agent", "function" and "perform" suggests that Evolution has a 'consciousness', or that something is "behind" the process. There is nothing behind that process, no purpose, no consciousness... hence my disagreement with your choice of words.

 

The only thing we know about that doesn't seem to be some kind of process is the instantaneous 'co-operation' or interaction between entangled states at the quantum level.

 

I have NO IDEA what you mean by that... what quantum levels, and who's cooperating with what..?

 

Explain, please, I didn't understand that last part.

 

~moo

[Fred56]

So where does consciousness enter the picture? Are lifeforms conscious? of course.

We're lifeforms and we are aware (like lots of other animals). Awareness means consciousness. But it's a function, like evolution is.

[mooeypoo]

So where does consciousness enter the picture? Are lifeforms conscious? of course.

 

Of course? Of course why?

 

Although I agree we are 'conscious', I wouldn't call it an "of course". It's an ongoing philosophical discussion, so far without an answer. "Are we conscious". No, not of course at all.

 

 

Consciousness is another term we humans coined to define the processes of our brains. what is it? Good question, and a fascinating discussion, but since I don't believe it's "outside" of our bodies, I would have to say that in my own opinion, it was developed in time through our brain. How and what was the process exactly? I'm not sure, it sounds like a great project to research on, and I will try to, when I'm done with my finals.

 

But remember.. the fact we don't know (yet) the explanation for something doesn't mean that there is only one alternative for it.. in short: the fact I am not sure "where" consciousness comes from, doesn't make it a function.

 

That said, I am not sure how evolution being a function have anything to do with consciousness? I lost the connection between the two... ?

 

We're lifeforms and we are aware (like lots of other animals). Awareness means consciousness. But it's a function, like evolution is.

 

How do you know other animals are aware? How do you define "awareness"?

 

Those are VERY deep philosophical questions. I have my own opinion on them, and though it sounds similar to yours, I would still not hurry to answer it.. we're jumping from scientific explanations (Evolution) to philosophy.... very DEEP philosophy.

 

And I TOTALLY don't see how function gets into anything, even if what you say is an absolute truth (which, again, you're making 'absolute' claims about subjects that are highly debated, and - at the very least - are not substantiated...)

 

You talk two different "languages" here.. it's like you're saying "A and then T, and therefore - of course - Theta"..

 

I mean.. what? I don't get the reasoning behind what you're claiming.

 

Don't mix philosophy with science.. unless you INTEND to argue philosophy, in which case it's speculatory, depends on personal approach, and completely irrelevant to observational science.

 

 

~moo

[Fred56]

That said, I am not sure how evolution being a function have anything to do with consciousness? I lost the connection between the two... ?

Are you implying that human and animal awareness (consciousness), terms which are well-understood, and which I suspect you understand the meanings of, aren't "anything to do with" evolution?

[mooeypoo]

Are you implying that human and animal awareness (consciousness), terms which are well-understood, and which I suspect you understand the meanings of, aren't "anything to do with" evolution?

 

I am not implying, I am flat-out saying that you are right now *mixing* philosophical questions (What is awareness? How do we define our awareness? *ARE WE AWARE or is it just an 'illusion'*) with Scientific questions, and that's unfair.

 

The discussion to define human awareness is not that simple, it's ongoing in philosophy, and it actually can be quite an interesting one to start on this forum as well ("I think therefore I am...?") but it has nothing to do with the CURRENT thread talking about *Evolution* as a Scientific matter.

 

 

Quite frankly, Fred, when you just state that an answer is obvious to a subject that is *not* so obvious (hence, it has ongoing discussions in the philosophical community, no definitive answer, and no possible way *of* definitely answering because it's a matter of psychology and philosophy and definitions of terms), it's a bit condescending.

 

I understand what you *mean* but that doesn't mean that consciousness is so obvious.

 

I'll ask again, btw, because I can already see how you're only replying on the above sentence, that you give me the same respect I give you and read the *entire* point I'm making, and not just nitpick whatever is nice for you to answer. It's getting quite confusing.

 

And, as for doing or not doing with evolution: Evolution is the *CHANGE* of an organism through time. If you want to understand why certain changes occured instead of others (for instance, why do we have eyes at the front of our heads instead of at the sides) you use Natural Selection to examine the environment in which we were developped and see which attribute could have been 'selected' as a beneficial one and which "died" out.

 

Consciousness is a philosophical matter. What is consciousness? Where does it come from? Is it "external" to our bodies or is it inside our brains? What happens to people who die and come back - do they have their consciousness "on hold" ? when is consciousness "happening" - at birth or before? And when "before"? at consception? then what happens if there are twins? Is consciousness the same for all humans? Are 'smart' people the ones with 'better' consciousness or are the 'spiritual' people the ones with 'better' consciousness? Can you be sure that the way you see yourself in the mirror (hence,your perception of yourself) is the same as the way others see you?

 

 

Those are not simple questions. If you want to ask *HOW IS IT* that we developed a brain that is capable -- and actually struggling with -- asking these questions, then it's a different matter. Some scientists define this as a "side-effect" of another biological attribute that has evolved.

 

For instance, the fact that children very suseptible to brainwashing is a question that we can TRY and see the answer to through Natural Selection. I heard Richard Dawkins explain it in a nice way:

 

In nature, young children need to obey their parents because if they start wondering what is "right and wrong", they'll ignore their parents' order to not pick up a snake in the tail, and end up dying.

Children who ignored advice, therefore, died. Children with a tendency to be more 'obeying' towards their parents, lived, and this tendency ended up in the entire population.

This tendency, however, also creates a situation where the child is obeying and listening ot his parents regardless of the truth behind their words, so a child is more prone to brainwashing.

 

Is this absolutely true? I don't know. It's logical, so it may be, but I am not sure if a definitive answer exists on the matter.

 

In any case, in order to see what "developed" that attribute (of being 'prone' to brainwashing) I defined it first, and I knew what we were talking about. *ONLY THEN* I could start checking how it was developed.

 

Consciousness is a vague term because YOU mean one thing, I probably see it differently, and others COMPLETELY differently. First we need to define *WHAT* attribute of what we generally call 'consciousness' we wish to explain, and then see how it came about.. saying just "consciousness" is void. It's not a well-defined term, and so trying to figure out where "it" came from in the evolutionary process is not a valid question.

 

 

~moo

[iNow]

It's more of a 'tree'. By the way, I strongly suggest watching Dawkins' fascinating lecture "Growing up in the Universe" (containing his famous "climbing up mount improbable" lecture) available *officially* (hence, not 'hacked' or 'stolen' ) through his website: http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse

 

He explains very very eloquently about the process of evolution, and how organs were created, animals developed certain attributes, and the bunk of 'irreducible complexity'. Worth-a-watchin'.

 

Indeed! Thank you for sharing this with us! I had a horribly challenging week at work, and I spent my evenings (well, at least the 2 or so hours that I had between responding to issues in India and China and falling asleep ) watching these lectures. Not only did it take me away from the challenges of the office, but it reminded me of why I love science, and filled in the gaps of much of my understanding.

 

Presented at a level that anybody can understand, but true to the knowledge of the experts as well. This was brilliant, despite it's "vintage" nature.

 

 

[mooeypoo]

I thought Douglas Adams' guest appearance was brilliant.

 

Btw, in his website, Dawkins often has these type of lectures (and more) for free.. This week he featured the Atheist Aligience meeting thing with lectures from him, Sam Harris, Hitchens, etc.. It's well worth it too