Evolution As Response Reaction Of The Genotype

You're mixing a lot of terms and concepts here. Mutation can happen because of errors in DNA transcription, errors in DNA proofreading, free radicals, UV light, etc. It's not a reaction except in the sense that it's the end result of a chemical reaction that is NOT selectively induced.

Evolution is a genetic change on a population level that happens over time. At the nonacademic level that people talk about this here, you'd think that it's just a phenotypic change. But evolution can be easily measured and studied even in instances where no changed phenotype is produced. However, to get at the heart of your question, evolution cannot be simply described as a "reactionary response to the physical world". Why? Because the most influential factors in evolution have to do with statistical phenomena -- like the effect of non-random mating and small population size on allele frequency within a population. Natural selection exerts a much smaller force on the genome than plain old genetic drift -- although when present its force is powerful.

Adaptation is both biological and behavioral. We adapted to create clothing rather than biologically evolving to grow fur. Etc.

Easy -- we genetically engineer every single embryo and we selectively abort fetuses that do not meet our standards. That way our genetic evolution is our own doing.

But outside the realm of science fiction, I don't really understand what motivates your question. Sure, it would be great if our intellect and reason ruled the world. But the fact of the matter is we're animals and we're beholden to the constraints of our biology and the permissiveness of our environment -- and nothing can change that.

Aedes, if genetically engeneering is a way for humanity to get out of the reactionay situation and into the re-actionary situation, then is it not necessary that within us lies something which has the possibility to re-act in the first place?

To me that is something which has the possibility to create, in a limited way; something which is present a priori. That something should, in itself, combine being and creating; or to be more to the point reacting and re-acting. A local version of the first unmoved mover in a way. Although I am of a mind to say that it goes well beyond that in the sense that it is mover.

Hope this helps.

I was being facetious. The point was that THAT would be one way to be the actor on our genes rather than have our population genetics be subject to the environment.

Of course it's impossible technically and it's undesirable anyway.

I feel like the central conflict in all philosophical meditations like this is that we have difficulty reconciling our rational self-image with the fact that we are things in a physical world. Both can be accurate without resorting to dualism; unless you can't let go of the idea that our consciousness can be somehow 'pure' from the physical body that produces it and the physical world that surrounds it. But we are what we are, and we can't always be the actor, especially at the level of our own nucleotides.

Originally Posted by Aedes
You're mixing a lot of terms and concepts here. Mutation can happen because of errors in DNA transcription, errors in DNA proofreading, free radicals, UV light, etc. It's not a reaction except in the sense that it's the end result of a chemical reaction that is NOT selectively induced.


I believe those aspects of one process are indeed reactions, transformation does not occur in the absence of reaction. The above you state, it's not a reaction expcept in the sense that it's the end result of a chemical reaction that is not selectively induced. Sound like reaction to me!!.

"Evolution is a genetic change on a population level that happens over time. At the nonacademic level that people talk about this here, you'd think that it's just a phenotypic change. But evolution can be easily measured and studied even in instances where no changed phenotype is produced. However, to get at the heart of your question, evolution cannot be simply described as a "reactionary response to the physical world". Why? Because the most influential factors in evolution have to do with statistical phenomena -- like the effect of non-random mating and small population size on allele frequency within a population. Natural selection exerts a much smaller force on the genome than plain old genetic drift -- although when present its force is powerful." quote

:)Could you expand on genetic drift? By statistical phenomena you are then infering they have no bases in reality? Are they not an expression of the conditions phenomena are subject too?

"Adaptation is both biological and behavioral. We adapted to create clothing rather than biologically evolving to grow fur. Etc." quote

:)These two things cannot be considered of different natures, your behaviour is an expression of your biology. Adaptation is a reaction, weather your biology reacts to grow a fur coat or you adapt to create clothing----its all reaction.

"Easy -- we genetically engineer every single embryo and we selectively abort fetuses that do not meet our standards. That way our genetic evolution is our own doing." quote

:)Like you said, you were dipping into science fiction, There is only one thing biology can do, and that is react to its environment. It is true there are many choices, many possiablities, but whatever you choose, it will be, a reaction to your environment.

"But outside the realm of science fiction, I don't really understand what motivates your question. Sure, it would be great if our intellect and reason ruled the world. But the fact of the matter is we're animals and we're beholden to the constraints of our biology and the permissiveness of our environment -- and nothing can change that." quote

I could not agree more, that was my point, but, you cannot even say that the environment acts, unless you mean by that anything which exists is acting, the environment simply is, and it is to the envioronment that biology is bound to react to.

Don't do it! It's a trap! :p

Didn't we already well establish that any action is comprised of elements to which one could say we're reacting? The only way to get around this is to come up with any action taken which does not have any elements (of any type), at all.

Arjen,

I would say consciousness is reaction as effect. If I am understanding you correctly you are saying that the physical world is acting upon the organism, I would agree if, it is said that being itself is acting, thus the greater the manifestation, the more enduring its existence, the more it evokes reaction-- and thus establishes relation.

Khethil,

Well, weather we did or no, your statement is right on the money. Actually I would rather think in terms of cooperation than anyone setting traps--------sounds kind of negative. This business of action on the part of the physical world, I do not know quite what to make of that, is that which is being, is existence, of neccessity acting? It would seem your contribution answers that for us, yes its very existence is mutual reaction, but is its relation to a organism one of action, the action of being, the action of presence, existence? What say you Khethil??

An emergent quality is not of cause, but relational transformation of the elements of at least two objects, conditions or substances. The essence of what will be is in the nature of what is called cause and effect, two constitutions that react to emerge as something new or to produce something new.

Darwin's theory is supporting the idea that evolution occurs gradually right? Based upon succession. Mutation is random so they go on all the time and only some will succeed and most will fail as they can't be in correspondence to the environment.
But with consciousness as universal, does that mean that the genes with the possible mutations and other info could be gathered and stored for a period of time until when a reason is resolved (to have a more successive genotype) due to a vast expanse of genetic information, of past generations, and present entity, there would be a very quick instance in which that 'reason' would be fulfilled, thus making evolution happen in instances, not gradually. Therefore, are you purposely denouncing darwin's theory of evolution like I am.

Except that modern evolutionary theory does not support gradual evolution. It happens in fits and starts, particularly due to selective sweeps from a sudden change in conditions or the sudden appearance of a highly advantageous genotype.

Mutation is not random. It is more likely in telomeric regions than centromeric regions, it is more likely in A-T base pairs than in C-G base pairs, and there are epigenetic factors that can modify risk of mutation. Mutation mostly does not happen in a directed way because of environmental pressure, but it is not 100% random across the genome. There are predictable patterns to it.

Darwin's theory of evolution was groundbreaking for 150 years ago. But there have been enormous advances since then, so I don't see what the point is in dwelling on Darwin. Even if he had been wrong himself, it doesn't matter because modern evolutionary science is built on a whole lot more than his drawings of finch beaks.

Furthermore, as I mention above, evolution DOES happen to some degree in instances. But this has to do with the way selectively advantageous genotypes will rapidly become predominant over few generations, or the way selectively disadvantageous traits will be extinguished. This is one reason why intermediate forms are often absent from a fossil record, because they were too transient. Do some reading about "punctuated equilibrium".

So Darwin's theory is wrong?! Why am I learning it in school. I hate school, its biased.
Well I dont hate it, but wow there was a whole unit in biology course on the dang theory!
At least its wrong.

No, it's NOT wrong -- It's foundational. Just as Einstein was not wrong even though his work has been supplemented over the last 100 years.

What you are learning as "Darwin's theory" is a lot more complicated than simply the work and writings of Darwin himself. His work has been greatly improved upon. No story about evolution would be possible without a mechanism, and at the time of Darwin there was no biological mechanism known for evolution. Evolution, as observed by Darwin, was inferred by looking very macroscopically at different overt phenotypes, like how finches had differently shaped beaks that were adapted to their food type. But evolution, fundamentally, is NOT morphologic or functional change. Fundamentally it is genetic change, and at the time of Darwin this was not established.

Gregor Mendel helped change that with his own foundational work in genetics; and molecular genetics has made the study of this subject so complicated that Mendel's work with peas seems very primitive. It wasn't until the 1940s and 1950s that we began to identify the molecules responsible for genetic information and their structure and function.

Furthermore, at the time of Darwin, the classification of organisms was basically derived from Linnaeus, i.e. morphological description along with the later stipulation that a species is determined by ability to procreate in nature. But species determinations are now made at the molecular level, and many organisms (especially microorganisms) have been reclassified even into different Kingdoms based on molecular work.

When I said that it doesn't matter if Darwin is wrong, that doesn't mean that he IS wrong. What that means is that he set in motion a movement that has been verified by a huge abundance of research over 150 years -- so his ACTUAL findings are incidental to our current understanding of the subject. After all, you can go to the Galapagos and make the same observations as he did. There's nothing private about his data or his work. He was just the first to string it together in the way he did.

Instead of relating the evolution of a genus to it's genotype, thus insinuating that intrinsic characteristics change to suit conditions, why not try the concept of a genus recognizing itself and changing somewhat 'consciously' - so an individual's evolution is like a self-observing phenotype making subconscious adjustments during growth.

Like a body entering a growth spurt, consciously recognizing a need to run fast, thus running fast in order to improve the strength of the legs - so a genotype is replaced by a self-observing phenotype.

There are epigenetic phenomena that indeed change in response to conditions. The word epigenetic refers to NON-genetic processes that regulate gene expression.

However, this is NOT evolution because it does not change the genotype of germ-line cells. Thus, no adaptive genotype is passed on to subsequent generations. (This is excluding the circumstance by which certain behaviors will produce more procreative fitness -- so fat pale schlubs who play PS2 all day may be less likely to pass on their genes than people who work out, for instance).

But again, this individual behavioral adaptation is not pertinent to a discussion of evolution except insofar as the behavior may modify procreative fitness. Or except insofar as there is a genetic predisposition to engage that behavior.