Evolution began with language

And what is a positive mutation ?

It's impossible that only beneficial mutations exist.not really

why must it lead to extinction ?

Even if so ( it is not so), extinction of any or all carrying that gene or that DNA is Evolution. Surely, Evolution leads to an extinction in the niche, in most cases. And that extinction is Evolution too.

A positive mutation is a controlled and precise re-authoring of the genetic code that is directed specifically to benefit any given organism against any given threat.


Oh sure, negative mutations do exist. They are typically from sources of radiation or some other natural phenomenon that the genes cannot account for. But negative mutations are never the end goal.

Because Natural Selection does not select for negative mutations. NS only selects positive mutations. All others become dodo birds.

Well, that's an entertaining thought indeed. But most biologists and geneticists would not concur with your appraisal.

In fact, they would tell us quite the opposite, that Extinction is not a form of Evolution, but rather instead, Extinction is the end game for Evolution.

I guess you could say that Extinction is counter intuitive to the purpose of Evolution. They are quite the antonyms.

goal ? that's assuming something without proper support, I'd say.

nope. you forgot neutral.
also there is Biased Gene Conversion, which entails keeping it whether it's good or not.

You might say. But other professionals would not...

"Molecular genetics has amply confirmed McClintock's discovery that living organisms actively reorganize their genomes (5). It has also supported her view that the genome can "sense danger" and respond accordingly.
James Schapiro
01/07/30 - ICBP 2000

This has been known since the mid 1950's. There's nothing new here.

It's no secret that pseudogenes supposedly retain a full record of our historical genome. But pseudogenes are inactive and do not encode for beneficial proteins.

It says nothing about purely environmental damage or masking. and that is what we are talking about.

that's not biased gene conversion or nearly neutral mutation.

...it is possible to both physically alter the DNA and to alter phenotype, coding not needed to alter DNA or phenotype.

OK I'm really trying to learn something new here and not trying to be difficult... really, I promise. But what I don't understand about BGC is where the Information came from to alter the phenotype.

The only thing I've read on BGC is that a mysterious conversion is taking place, but that does not account for what exactly directs one quantity of Info to be converted to another type of Info for the phenotype...

As well, is this really to be considered as evolution? Am I incorrect to believe that specation does not occur with a change in phenotype?

And the real point I'm leading to is directed more so to the OP. That evolution (an actual change in species) is specifically directed by a positive mutation, an actual re-authoring of the genetic code, thus standing by my original claim that evolution not only began with language, but is necessarily dependent upon language to even manifest.

What am I missing?

---------- Post added 02-02-2010 at 08:10 PM ----------



Music is a language. It can be represented in many different ways. That's one of the qualifiers for Language. The rhythm and tone of language is called cadence and inflection. All spoken languages have it. It's harder with written language but not impossible.

Thanks for that info on whale song though. I often use whale song to support my arguments. Do you have a link to that research? I'm very interested.

Concerted evolution is the production and maintenance of homogeneity within repeated families of DNA. Two mechanisms--unequal crossing over and biased gene conversion--have been the principal explanations of concerted evolution. Concerted evolution of ribosomal DNA (rDNA) arrays is thought to be largely the result of unequal crossing over. However, concerted evolution of rDNA in parthenogenetic lizards of hybrid origin is strongly biased toward one of two parental sequences, which is consistent with biased gene conversion as the operative mechanism. The apparent gene conversions are independent of initial genome dosage and result in homogenization of rDNA arrays across all nucleolar organizer regions.

Thanks for that info on whale song though. I often use whale song to support my arguments. Do you have a link to that research? I'm very interested.

Music is not language, or it would be called language...It is a form of communication, but then, so is violence...

The difference, among other is that each word is a concept, an abstraction, as well as a sign... Music is not made up of signs...Music can be expressed, but not signified...

It is like scent, which each person perceives subjectively and no one can have as a sign...

Each scent my be related to its source, but, because it is not visual, it cannot be a sign, and the sign cannot be shared...

QuinticNon;124787 wrote:

I think we're gonna disagree here. But possibly our disagreement is just semantics. At the risk of diverting the intentions of the OP, please explain why you think violence is a form of communication... and... how exactly anything can be communicated without using a language tool to communicate with.

How can a message be transmitted and received (communicated) without a code (language)?

A message can transmitted directly, as when a brute passes the pain he feels to another without troubling to express it in words...Much of our communication is non verbal, and so not language..

Quote:

What would you say to a Mozart that writes music on paper with stanza and notes (language) to visually express (signify) the thoughts in his mind? As well, music in the form of sound requires an encoding process to take place. A physical instrument is encoded with an agreed upon convention to relate the thoughts of one mind to another. How is this not a language?

Musical notes are a sort of language, but they only signify to those who know, and cannot begin to fully express the experience of the music, which is totally subjective...Language works only as well as it is objective, and that is why the use of slang, which can be satifying, is also subjectively so, since it is not designed to include, and communicate, but to exclude and miscommunicate... It feels good some times for the excluded to exclude...

Quote:

I see your point, in that (beyond lyrics) the actual sound does not necessarily represent any particular object to the listener... even if that sound does indeed represent something to the player. No actual communication has taken place... yet still, the thoughts from one mind have indeed been shared with another.

Words as sounds do not have meaning unless one is talking about sound words of Onomonopia...It is because they havve no meaning that they do not detract from the communication, which means, as a form of relationship, that the words have meaning in advance of their being used to communicate...If I can offer an example...Some friends owning a Chinese restaraunt were talking, with she rattling away at him in Chinese...In the middle of this, she turned to me and asked: Right??? What ever you say is fine with me...


Symbolic representation does not need to be visual in any way. Primitive tribes use drum beats as a medium to express intentions. Spoken language is not visual in any way either... And even scent can be used as a medium for communication... All we need to do is agree upon their representation and we can communicate any message we want with as little as one single scent in binary form... Apple smell means 1... no apple smell means 0. Once we get there, we can share any thought we wish... No? It's still symbolic. We could even go quaternary with it and have rotten apples, fresh apples, granny apples, cut apples, ripe apples all symbolically represent different letters. An entire alphabet could be developed from scent alone.

I have read about language...

At the very least, it is the only mechanism available to humans for sharing the very thoughts of our minds with one another. A virtual union of essence... which can't be all bad.:a-ok:

Thanks for the reply. Whether we agree or disagree, it is my pleasure to learn of another person who values the importance of language enough to have studied it a bit and have something to say about it.

We would all do well not to take language for granted as we so often do. At the very most, I believe it could be as Bhartrihari suggests, the manifestation of Brahman into our physical realm Bhartrihari[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]. At the very least, it is the only mechanism available to humans for sharing the very thoughts of our minds with one another. A virtual union of essence... which can't be all bad.:a-ok:

I wonder if a fuller union of essence, as it were, will be possible when we are able to link one mind to another via a cable transmitting electro-chemical signals. That would be a new manifestation of language, no? I don't think the idea is that far fetched.

Thanks for the reply. Whether we agree or disagree, it is my pleasure to learn of another person who values the importance of language enough to have studied it a bit and have something to say about it.

We would all do well not to take language for granted as we so often do. At the very most, I believe it could be as Bhartrihari suggests, the manifestation of Brahman into our physical realm Bhartrihari[The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]. At the very least, it is the only mechanism available to humans for sharing the very thoughts of our minds with one another. A virtual union of essence... which can't be all bad.:a-ok:

Using words to speak and to think thoughts was a big turning point in human history. in fact, it is the major factor that began the recording and documenting of our story as a human society living on this planet. The time period before 4000BC is considerd by historians and academics to be prehistoric.
Today human civilization is set apart from nature and the rest of the animals. This is because Mankind has a capacity of consciousness quite beyond the abilities and experience of the other creatures and life forms. This ability is the conceptualization of ideas and situations made possible by the use of words.
No other life form, plant or animal has this capacity to develop and use such a comlex yet convenient available memory through the use of the word. It is the single factor that differentiates and separates mankind from animals. Although animals also have memories they store them in picture form. Mankind also stores memories in picture forms but since about 4000BC he has developed another computer type operation that uses words, numbers, analogies, and catagories of many types for memory storage. All of this has been made possible only because of the abilities brought about by words and the use of gramatical language. dan b