2
   

Consciousness is a Biological Problem

 
 
Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 12:23 pm
@richrf,
I think the motives of science (and philosophy mind you) all fall into this category which I've quoted Ramez Naam for, because he explains it best.

Quote:
"Playing god is actually the highest expression of human nature. The urges to improve ourselves, to master our environment, and to set our children on the best path possible have been the fundamental driving forces of all of human history. Without these urges to "play god" the world as we know it wouldn't exist today. A few million humans would live in savannahs and forests, eking out a hunter-gatherer existence, without writing or history or mathematics or an appreciation of the intricacies of their own universe and their own inner workings" - Ramez Naam.
To say that love is an emotion does not take away from the goal of science to try to determine what love is. I'd imagine every scientist will tell you that love is an emotion, but scientists would be concerned to find out what love is in a way that they can understand how it works, manipulate it, and make it better. One might say this is a liberal taste, to me, its inevitable that this taste will dominate, and ultimately we'll eliminate this monistic, metaphysical concept of consciousness which is held in many people today.

I think it is shown that any time there is a monistic entity envisioned it only goes to show that such a 'thing' which is really a mechanism, is only monistic because it is not well understood. We do not well understand what goes on at the quantum level (obviously), and those that were deemed indivisible by historical models, are now seen not as indivisible particles, but as waves, and non-objects... whatever you want to call it. And I think god too, is a good example of this. Perhaps that is because there is nothing to be understood. And so when science adopts these ideas such as dark energy, gravitons, etc., they are adopting these meatless words to describe the newly found phenomenon which requires an understanding. It is not to say that scientists have the mindset that it would actually be appropriate to keep such 'fuzzy' words. No, it is irrelevant what they adopt, because they'll eventually overthrow the words, right?

How many times have we changed our conception of gravity, the atom, electrons, etc. The terms continue to be filled with richness and understanding, and are not abject and static, because as stated elegantly above, we would be condemned to the fruitless life.

EDIT: [And consciousness is no different]. There are no mystical, quantum explanations required to understand the mechanism that drives consciousness, or perhaps better put, the mechanism that is consciousness if consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. But conclusions that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon often make such a concept monistic also, and therefore suggesting a lack of understanding as to what consciousness is.

We could say that love is an emotion...end of story. But where does that get us? Or is that the point, to keep us grounded here, and safe.

Or we could understand from multiple viewpoints, while approaching the why and the underlying mechanisms. And that is the simplest (ironically?) way to answer the riveting questions this thread poses. Smile
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 01:03 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;84980 wrote:
but scientists would be concerned to find out what love is in a way that they can understand how it works, manipulate it, and make it better.


If the motive of scientists is to understand in order to manipulate, and make it better, I hope they know what they are doing, but there are issues with this kind of thinking, and as for me, I would rather not participate in this process of manipulation on order to make me better.

Holiday20310401;84980 wrote:
Or we could understand from multiple viewpoints, while approaching the why and the underlying mechanisms. And that is the simplest (ironically?) way to answer the riveting questions this thread poses. Smile


Yes, that is what I am doing. One does not have to be a scientist to embrace exploration, learning, understanding, and growth through sharing. Every single activity I have ever been involved with, I have experience growth and understanding through exploration. I approach ideas such as love from many directions based upon my own life experiences and observations. It all eventually has to fit together because it is what it is.

Rich
Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 02:14 pm
@richrf,
richrf;84992 wrote:
If the motive of scientists is to understand in order to manipulate, and make it better, I hope they know what they are doing, but there are issues with this kind of thinking, and as for me, I would rather not participate in this process of manipulation on order to make me better.


But isn't humanity about overcoming what restricts us? Isn't that the key element which makes us human? I agree we need discretion. Anybody will agree. I think even some sort of liberal fundamentalists would agree. Existentialism probably portrays such a feeling too.

richrf;84992 wrote:
Yes, that is what I am doing.


Not denying that.

richrf;84992 wrote:
It all eventually has to fit together because it is what it is.
Rich


And what it is is uncertain in this case.
0 Replies
 
Kielicious
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 03:51 pm
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;84873 wrote:
As for Oden, well, he has convinced himself that evolution has been proven a fact. Nuff said! I rest my case.


Evolution is a fact but my inclination tells me your definition of the word fact means something along the lines of "omg 100% proofz!" rather than its intended scientific meaning.
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 04:15 pm
@richrf,
xris;84910 wrote:
Kj you asked me what I called observable brain activity, when a patient is under observation, you could tell me more about that, than I. I thought it meant frontal lobe activity and did not record neocortex activity.


frontal lobe is part of the neocortex

xris;84910 wrote:
Im no expert but if consciousness could be precisely placed it could possibly be the electromagnetic field produced by this cortex, am i wrong?


probably not

it's more holistic than that

xris;84910 wrote:
The neocortex, i believe, is the evolutionery invention that humans have that lower primates dont have


all mammals have a neocortex

richrf;84918 wrote:
It is interesting how proven facts can materialize simply when enough people agree that it is a fact. Of course, within a given evangelical congregation, Creationism is a fact.


epistemic relativism doesn't work

sorry if you declare something like "if we don't sacrifice kids everyday the sun won't come up tomorrow" to be a fact and then your religion falls apart when the conquistadores arrive and, lo, the sun keeps coming in the absence of daily sacrifice then it isn't much of a "fact" is it

truth is not determined by "whatever works 4 u bb"

richrf;84918 wrote:
Facts apparently depend upon who one hangs around with. There appears to be among humans a desire to be accepted, and acceptance means that you adhere to the facts of the majority within the group that one wants to be accepted within. This is one of the issues facing anyone who wants to belong. But, this would be more appropriately discussed under epistemology within science. e.g., How does group pressure affects facts and what do leaders of groups do to bring conformity to ideas within a group?


I'm schizoid ok I have little to no desire to be accepted by anyone and so my professional life will be devoted to the advancement of technologies which the majority of people find noxious because I'm a free man like that

so there

xris;84926 wrote:
We all adhere to our beliefs and seek reassurances from like minded souls, the scientist are no different, even if they like to think of themselves of the upholders of the true truth. It is a continuing battle with ones ego to avoid such pitfalls..


EPISTEMIC RELATIVISM DOESN'T WORK

richrf;84931 wrote:
I agree. Everyone seems to be seeking to belong to a group. And each group has its central tenets which one must adhere to in order to belong. Anyone who challenges such central tenets (e.g. evolutionary theory), gambles on subjecting oneself to ridicule and banishment - the operative mechanism within a group to maintain order and control. You can witness these mechanisms actively used all of the time within any kind of group whether it be religious or scientific, or whatever.


it's different in the case of science though because a person is generally being ridiculed for failing to adhere to reality, rather than a made-up fairy tale

richrf;84931 wrote:
The nice thing about science is that everything is always being researched and disputed. The problem is that everyone in science is at the same time claiming that it is all facts.


at the frontiers, there is a lot of dispute

things that are widely accepted with scads of evidence (but offend people) like "we evolved from other apes" and "the brain is a computer" can be considered facts

it's strange that you people attack facts which hurt your feelings, but not those that are innocuous

richrf;84931 wrote:
A bit of a problem for someone who is reading science. It begins to sound more like a religion. Personally, I spend lots of time reading medical science, and am somewhat bemused by the day to day changes in facts


would you rather adhere to the doctrine of chakras, which has been wrong since the beginning, hasn't changed since, and is still wrong now?

richrf;84992 wrote:
If the motive of scientists is to understand in order to manipulate, and make it better, I hope they know what they are doing, but there are issues with this kind of thinking, and as for me, I would rather not participate in this process of manipulation on order to make me better.


good no one asked you to but that doesn't mean the rest of us aren't hard at work destroying everything you hold dear
0 Replies
 
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 04:21 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;85011 wrote:
Evolution is a fact but my inclination tells me your definition of the word fact means something along the lines of "omg 100% proofz!" rather than its intended scientific meaning.


So, you have made a declaration. Being of the critical, systematic mind that I am, the first thing I do is go to is Wikipedia, to try to understand what is a fact. I don't even go beyond Wikipedia, because I know that I will be swamped with thousands of different views. So I just try to keep it simple, for the sake of discussion. Now here is the link to Wikipedia with the heading Evolution. Now I ask, as an inquisitive student of life, which of this (what is written in Wikipedia) is fact and by what definition of fact? I would like this to be from the scientific point of view.

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 04:36 pm
@Kielicious,
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Kielicious
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 04:47 pm
@richrf,
richrf;85019 wrote:
So, you have made a declaration. Being of the critical, systematic mind that I am, the first thing I do is go to is Wikipedia, to try to understand what is a fact. I don't even go beyond Wikipedia, because I know that I will be swamped with thousands of different views. So I just try to keep it simple, for the sake of discussion. Now here is the link to Wikipedia with the heading Evolution. Now I ask, as an inquisitive student of life, which of this (what is written in Wikipedia) is fact and by what definition of fact? I would like this to be from the scientific point of view.

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rich



A theory explains a set of facts in relation to another. A fact is nothing more than a confirmed observation.
wiki wrote:
Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs...


wiki wrote:
speciation has been observed multiple times under both controlled labratory conditions and in nature.


So are you questioning whether or not the human genome project has successfully shown that chromosomes in human DNA have been fused? or are you looking for observed instances of speciation? My guess is the latter...

talkorigins wrote:

5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation

The following are several examples of observations of speciation.
5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.



5.1.1 Plants

(See also the discussion in de Wet 1971).
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
5.1.1.3 Tragopogon

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.
5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis

Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.
5.1.1.7 Brassica

Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.
5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.
5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)

Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.
5.1.2 Animals

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.
5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy



5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis

Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.
5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)

Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.
5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)

At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.
5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature



5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster

Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.
5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster

Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).
5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster

Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.
5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster

In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.
They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.
They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.
5.3.6 Isolation Produced as an Incidental Effect of Selection on several Drosophila species

In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found.
In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation.
Less dramatic results were obtained by growing D. willistoni on media of different pH levels (de Oliveira and Cordeiro 1980). Mate choice tests after 26, 32, 52 and 69 generations of growth showed statistically significant assortative mating between some populations grown in different pH treatments. This ethological isolation did not always persist over time. They also found that some crosses made after 106 and 122 generations showed significant hybrid inferiority, but only when grown in acid medium.
5.3.7 Selection for Reinforcement in Drosophila melanogaster

Some proposed models of speciation rely on a process called reinforcement to complete the speciation process. Reinforcement occurs when to partially isolated allopatric populations come into contact. Lower relative fitness of hybrids between the two populations results in increased selection for isolating mechanisms. I should note that a recent review (Rice and Hostert 1993) argues that there is little experimental evidence to support reinforcement models. Two experiments in which the authors argue that their results provide support are discussed below.
Ehrman (1971) established strains of wild-type and mutant (black body) D. melanogaster. These flies were derived from compound autosome strains such that heterotypic matings would produce no progeny. The two strains were reared together in common fly cages. After two years, the isolation index generated from mate choice experiments had increased from 0.04 to 0.43, indicating the appearance of considerable assortative mating. After four years this index had risen to 0.64 (Ehrman 1973).
Along the same lines, Koopman (1950) was able to increase the degree of reproductive isolation between two partially isolated species, D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis.
5.3.8 Tests of the Founder-flush Speciation Hypothesis Using Drosophila

The founder-flush (a.k.a. flush-crash) hypothesis posits that genetic drift and founder effects play a major role in speciation (Powell 1978). During a founder-flush cycle a new habitat is colonized by a small number of individuals (e.g. one inseminated female). The population rapidly expands (the flush phase). This is followed by the population crashing. During this crash period the population experiences strong genetic drift. The population undergoes another rapid expansion followed by another crash. This cycle repeats several times. Reproductive isolation is produced as a byproduct of genetic drift.
Dodd and Powell (1985) tested this hypothesis using D. pseudoobscura. A large, heterogeneous population was allowed to grow rapidly in a very large population cage. Twelve experimental populations were derived from this population from single pair matings. These populations were allowed to flush. Fourteen months later, mating tests were performed among the twelve populations. No postmating isolation was seen. One cross showed strong behavioral isolation. The populations underwent three more flush-crash cycles. Forty-four months after the start of the experiment (and fifteen months after the last flush) the populations were again tested. Once again, no postmating isolation was seen. Three populations showed behavioral isolation in the form of positive assortative mating. Later tests between 1980 and 1984 showed that the isolation persisted, though it was weaker in some cases.
Galina, et al. (1993) performed similar experiments with D. pseudoobscura. Mating tests between populations that underwent flush-crash cycles and their ancestral populations showed 8 cases of positive assortative mating out of 118 crosses. They also showed 5 cases of negative assortative mating (i.e. the flies preferred to mate with flies of the other strain). Tests among the founder-flush populations showed 36 cases of positive assortative mating out of 370 crosses. These tests also found 4 cases of negative assortative mating. Most of these mating preferences did not persist over time. Galina, et al. concluded that the founder-flush protocol yields reproductive isolation only as a rare and erratic event.
Ahearn (1980) applied the founder-flush protocol to D. silvestris. Flies from a line of this species underwent several flush-crash cycles. They were tested in mate choice experiments against flies from a continuously large population. Female flies from both strains preferred to mate with males from the large population. Females from the large population would not mate with males from the founder flush population. An asymmetric reproductive isolation was produced.
In a three year experiment, Ringo, et al. (1985) compared the effects of a founder-flush protocol to the effects of selection on various traits. A large population of D. simulans was created from flies from 69 wild caught stocks from several locations. Founder-flush lines and selection lines were derived from this population. The founder-flush lines went through six flush-crash cycles. The selection lines experienced equal intensities of selection for various traits. Mating test were performed between strains within a treatment and between treatment strains and the source population. Crosses were also checked for postmating isolation. In the selection lines, 10 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (2 crosses showed negative assortative mating). They also found that 25 out of 216 crosses showed postmating isolation. Of these, 9 cases involved crosses with the source population. In the founder-flush lines 12 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (3 crosses showed negative assortative mating). Postmating isolation was found in 15 out of 216 crosses, 11 involving the source population. They concluded that only weak isolation was found and that there was little difference between the effects of natural selection and the effects of genetic drift.
A final test of the founder-flush hypothesis will be described with the housefly cases below.
5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments



5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies

Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.
5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow

Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:
Population A + geotaxis,no gene flowPopulation B - geotaxis,no gene flowPopulation C + geotaxis,30% gene flowPopulation D - geotaxis,30% gene flow
Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.
Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.
5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation

Recently there has been a lot of interest in whether the differentiation of an herbivorous or parasitic species into races living on different hosts can lead to sympatric speciation. It has been argued that in animals that mate on (or in) their preferred hosts, positive assortative mating is an inevitable byproduct of habitat selection (Rice 1985; Barton, et al. 1988). This would suggest that differentiated host races may represent incipient species.
5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:
[INDENT]"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."
[/INDENT]5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)

Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.
5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)

Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.
5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata5.8 Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont

In some species the presence of intracellular bacterial parasites (or symbionts) is associated with postmating isolation. This results from a cytoplasmic incompatability between gametes from strains that have the parasite (or symbiont) and stains that don't. An example of this is seen in the mosquito Culex pipiens (Yen and Barr 1971). Compared to within strain matings, matings between strains from different geographic regions may may have any of three results: These matings may produce a normal number of offspring, they may produce a reduced number of offspring or they may produce no offspring. Reciprocal crosses may give the same or different results. In an incompatible cross, the egg and sperm nuclei fail to unite during fertilization. The egg dies during embryogenesis. In some of these strains, Yen and Barr (1971) found substantial numbers of Rickettsia-like microbes in adults, eggs and embryos. Compatibility of mosquito strains seems to be correlated with the strain of the microbe present. Mosquitoes that carry different strains of the microbe exhibit cytoplasmic incompatibility; those that carry the same strain of microbe are interfertile.
Similar phenomena have been seen in a number of other insects. Microoganisms are seen in the eggs of both Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti. These two species do not normally hybridize. Following treatment with antibiotics, hybrids occur between them (Breeuwer and Werren 1990). In this case, the symbiont is associated with improper condensation of host chromosomes.
For more examples and a critical review of this topic, see Thompson 1987.
5.9 A Couple of Ambiguous Cases

So far the BSC has applied to all of the experiments discussed. The following are a couple of major morphological changes produced in asexual species. Do these represent speciation events? The answer depends on how species is defined.
5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris

Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
5.9.2 Morphological Changes in Bacteria

Shikano, et al. (1990) reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod. After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Filaments of this type have also been produced under circumstances similar to Boraas' induction of multicellularity in Chlorella. Microscopic examination of these filaments is described in Gillott et al. (1993). Multicellularity has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation (Nakajima and Kurihara 1994). In this study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the production of chains of bacterial cells.
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 04:54 pm
@odenskrigare,
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.

Is this a joke or what?

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 04:58 pm
@richrf,
richrf;85022 wrote:
In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.

Is this a joke or what?

Rich


no, a person is nuts if he doesn't believe the Earth goes around the sun, that human sacrifice is not required to make it happen, and likewise if he doesn't believe that evolution happens or that the brain is a kind of computer
0 Replies
 
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 06:59 pm
@richrf,
richrf;84868 wrote:

Only I give some intent to it emanating from Consciousness, because I don't think things randomly come together in order to cook barbecues, watch football games, observe through telescopes and microscopes, or teach rats to run through mazes. In any case, I see no reason to make all these events simple random events. It may indeed be just random stuff but then I would expect a lot more disorder in the universe, like everything just flying apart in every which direction. But we do have gravity and other forces bringing things together.

So let's just say that what we call order is the work of Consciousness. This is what I think is bringing those pesky little neurons together to learn.


... well, now that humans on the scene and part of the engine of creation, it is conscious human intent that brings about things like barbecues and football games and so on ... the order of human technology and culture is definitely the work of conscious beings ... but I don't think that the fact that consciousness exists now implies that consciousness has always existed, any more than the fact that stars exist now implies that stars have always existed ...

---------- Post added 08-22-2009 at 06:26 PM ----------

Pathfinder;84873 wrote:
From what I have observed here, which by the way is the essence of science, Paul and Salime see the universe in some sort of a continuing trip through reality, its trajectory carrying everything around it in its wake and having no fixed destination.

Everything along the way is random and mishap, a result of the energy flowing along with that initial explosion of first cause. They see no reason to consider that within that wave of energy that there might be anything other than what they have already proven to exist through scientific means, and yet they readily admit that it is all one great mystery with regard to its origin.

To my mind that is like observing a space ship of some sort fly across the sky and convincing yourself that there is no sense in thinking that some alien might be steering the craft because you have not actually seen one in the drivers seat.


... to make this analogy between life and human technology is horribly demeaning to life ... humans design technology so that it can be controlled - that is the reason technology needs a pilot ... but for life, the pilot and the craft are inseparably one and the same ... when the universe created life, it created meaning ... glucose was no longer just one molecule among many - it was food ... when the universe created life, it also created intent ... it was no longer good enough to be a rock - life's intent was to find the source of that glucose ... so to say that the universe has no fixed direction may have been true at the beginning of the universe - but it is now quite obvious that the universe contains self-organized pockets of meaning and intent ... and even of consciousness ...

---------- Post added 08-22-2009 at 06:32 PM ----------

R.Danneskjöld;84939 wrote:
But what it essentially comes down to is that metaphysical statements are not testable and do not lie within the realm of Science, not to say the statements are in themselves meaningless as Popper pointed out that many now Scientific theorys grew out of metaphysical theorys.

Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths.


... holy cow! - someone who actually understands that Popper stood against positivism!!! ... lemme shake your hand!!! Smile
0 Replies
 
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 02:10 am
@Kielicious,
wasn't popper initially in favor of positivism, but changed his mind later
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 08:00 am
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;85021 wrote:
A theory explains a set of facts in relation to another. A fact is nothing more than a confirmed observation.


Using these definitions, then at least Darwin's Theory cannot be a theory because his facts cannot be facts. Unless, of course, he and at least one other person can look into the past and see what happened millions of years ago. Let's just then call Darwin's Theory some speculation on his part, and change it to Darwin's Speculations.




Kielicious;85021 wrote:
So are you questioning whether or not the human genome project has successfully shown that chromosomes in human DNA have been fused? or are you looking for observed instances of speciation? My guess is the latter...


I don't think I ever asked this question. If you can point to me the question, I can explain what I was asking.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-23-2009 at 09:03 AM ----------

paulhanke;85045 wrote:
but I don't think that the fact that consciousness exists now implies that consciousness has always existed, any more than the fact that stars exist now implies that stars have always existed ...


Yes, but neither is it precluded. This is a topic that is under discussion.

Rich
odenskrigare
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 08:12 am
@richrf,
richrf;85133 wrote:
Using these definitions, then at least Darwin's Theory cannot be a theory because his facts cannot be facts. Unless, of course, he and at least one other person can look into the past and see what happened millions of years ago. Let's just then call Darwin's Theory some speculation on his part, and change it to Darwin's Speculations.


well yeah rich idk man I mean I wasn't personally at Auschwitz-Birkenau and there are some doubts about the authenticity of the official Zionist Occupation Government version of events so idk let's call the Nuremburg trials ... speculative

and ya I mean anyway the theories of neither evolution nor the Holocaust are on such solid footing as the belief that the spark of life resides in an organ which can be replaced

---------- Post added 08-23-2009 at 11:23 AM ----------

btw I think this is a good time to point out that no one questions scientific consensi that don't personally offend them

you only see people questioning things like "we evolved from other apes" and "the brain is a computer," even though both of these statements were arrived at through the exact same methods as "microwave radiation cooks food" and "penicillin kills germs"

I wonder who's biased here
0 Replies
 
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 10:59 am
@odenskrigare,
odenskrigare;85098 wrote:
wasn't popper initially in favor of positivism, but changed his mind later


... according to Magee's intro to Popper (Magee knew him personally), the Vienna Circle initially mistook Popper's writings on falsifiability to be support for their views on verifiability when in fact it was a key part of an overall criticism of their views ... so while you will find writings from the Vienna Circle that use quotes from Popper as support for their views, you will find objections to such use and the position that the two views are entirely different in Popper's writings ...
0 Replies
 
Kielicious
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 02:55 pm
@richrf,
richrf;85133 wrote:
Using these definitions, then at least Darwin's Theory cannot be a theory because his facts cannot be facts. Unless, of course, he and at least one other person can look into the past and see what happened millions of years ago.



*facepalm*


Rich, you dissapoint me to the nth most degree. Instead of responding first, I wanna see if you can use YOUR critical thinking skills to realize what you did wrong and fix it. If by the end of the day you cannot think yourself out of that paperbag, then I will lend a hand. Let the game begin!
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 03:48 pm
@Kielicious,
Let's just face it people.

You do not have all the answers. You cannot use science or religion to reveal all truth. There are certain mysteries in this existence that remain a secret and untouched except by the tickling of our curiosity.

For reasons that delve deeply into the human psyche we tend to need something in our lives that helps to make us comfortable in a world of so many unanswered mysteries. Science and religion play that role. The difference between the two however is that science has been placed on somewhat of a pedestal due to its system of trial and error, whereas religion expects its followers to accept blindly what it declares. Science in its infancy was not bold enough to make such obnoxious declarations, expecting only that ist observers take what it had to reveal and further investigate and experiment to decide its merit. This led many scientists from opposing views to intently experiment to prove their theories as the more credible of two different theories.

Today both science and religion have developed grand followings. And today both are still bound to their initial tenets of teaching what they believe is accurate and true. The difference today is that there are so many opposing views that that the followers are easily lured into believing without any effort to prove anything at all anymore.

And thus we have people casually accepting the Big Bang Theory, Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and many, many other hypothetical meanderings, as fact. The religious scowl at the scientific, and the scientific muse at the illogic of the religious. And yet both are living in the exact same environment of deceit. Deceit because instead of accepting these teachings as theory and possibilities, they accept them as fact.

First and foremost a fact is not a matter of speculation as some like to suggest. Reality and truth are never subject to the creative consciousness of humanity as a whole or as individuals.

A fact is simply the truth of a matter, the truth being the reality of what something actually is, contrary to what someone might suggest it to be.

The fact is that God has not been proven to exist. All is speculation.

The fact is that science has not proven evolution or the origin of the universe. All is speculation.

The fact is that this world we know is full of secrets and mysteries that are unlocked in their own times. Man has unlocked many secrets through the investigations of science and made incredible advancements. Religion has accomplished many feats of social development that have been both beneficial and disastrous.

But the most elusive fact of all, is what man seems adamant to deny; that he does 'not' know all the answers. In truth there are far more mysteries contained within this existence than any of the minute degree of what we think we have solved or unlocked.

Let's face it. We are extremely vain to believe that we know anything in a universe filled with so many unanswered questions.

I prefer to walk through the garden and learn firsthand what the flowers look, feel and smell like. I do not have to categorize every single one and place my flag of ownership there. In the end, when the walk is complete, I will have smelled all of the same flowers and experienced all of the same discoveries, but I will have done so with a humbleness that appreciates the discoveries in ways that he who had to exhaust himself in research could not possibly understand.

Sometimes it is good to just stop and smell the roses. Who needs the thorns!
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 04:08 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;85180 wrote:
*facepalm*


Rich, you dissapoint me to the nth most degree. Instead of responding first, I wanna see if you can use YOUR critical thinking skills to realize what you did wrong and fix it. If by the end of the day you cannot think yourself out of that paperbag, then I will lend a hand. Let the game begin!


Sorry to disappoint you.

So far, I have these two definitions of scientific facts:

1) In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.

2) A fact is nothing more than a confirmed observation.

And no idea what is meant by evolution is a fact, since no one has defined what the subject or predicate of this statement means. I provided the Wikipedia description of Evolution which is a mouthful to say the least and I have no no idea which statements in Wikipedia are facts.

So, now for some self-criticism instead of criticism of others. Let's see how much self-criticism scientists really do as opposed to what they claim they do?

So far, I am just asking questions about evolution and facts.

Anyone care to fill me in?

Rich

---------- Post added 08-23-2009 at 05:20 PM ----------

Pathfinder;85187 wrote:
For reasons that delve deeply into the human psyche we tend to need something in our lives that helps to make us comfortable in a world of so many unanswered mysteries. Science and religion play that role.


I agree. We are all looking for comfort and stability, and order, in our lives. In fact, that may be a prime objective, because without it we cannot learn. An people use different means to get there. Science uses ideas like forces while religion uses ideas like God. But they are more or less equivalent in that they are just words for the unknown. But a word does give us some order and stability and something to talk about.

Rich
Pathfinder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 04:57 pm
@Kielicious,
Words for the unknown. lol

It is incredible isn't it, how a man can be completely uncomfortable with a thing until he can put a label on it. Once labeled he is then eager to put it in its place.

Some say that familiarity breeds contempt; I think that familiarity breeds resignation. And then when we become resigned, boredom follows and what we became familiar with now holds no interest for us. Probably one of man's greatest inventions was the eraser. It is imperative that we color the page, and yet once colored, we can only wish that we had used a different color.

Is man ever satisfied?
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 06:39 pm
@richrf,
richrf;85133 wrote:
Yes, but neither is it precluded. This is a topic that is under discussion.


... quite right - back to that pesky topic Smile ... here's an observation that I know will be thoroughly unsatisfying to everyone Wink: if, tomorrow, some trend-bucking scientist managed to reproducibly demonstrate that immaterial consciousness can exert control over the material and that when a baby is born the amount of free-floating immaterial consciousness in the universe is reduced and that when an old person dies the amount of free-floating immaterial consciousness in the universe is increased - what then? ... if biology is the scientific study of terrestrial life, doesn't that mean that these theories become part of biology? ... and doesn't that render consciousness a biological problem?

(I can already see the arrows flying in from all directions!)

---------- Post added 08-23-2009 at 05:43 PM ----------

Pathfinder;85195 wrote:
Is man ever satisfied?


... depends on which culture you come from Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/18/2025 at 01:30:21