Evolution - Who wants to KNOW?

Sequels won't be of any enlightenment to creationists.

C. I. good article, its scale is appropriate to the babblings of creationist apologists who want to discount the conclusions that unraveling of tthe genomes of plaants and animals have developed.
The fact taat we share so much DNA with the simplest and most complex animals can result in only one conclusion, thaat the process of evolution still proceeds, aand all life is related by the web of development of higher orders down to minor morph changees in species.

Creationism is just as irrelevant as Midieval armor craftsmen

cicerone, farmerman,

the article on the human genome project is excellent in how it refutes various examples of bad science.

i was disappointed, however, that the author used scientific findings to support a political philosophy.

did this bother either of you?

i am not a science professional. for me, the appeal of science is its objectivity and neutrality.

wand, There's a big difference between political and religious philosophy.

ugh...look what you people have done to me....i spent an hour last night reading through these posts and then paging through a bunch of books about this subject...i am always a sucker for the whole evolution debate thingy....anyway this is my very first post...yay, i guess...I found this thread by chance while i was looking for opinions on species centric conservation (isnt google great) and was sucked in....i have read a few discussions on this topic before and bib is really going about it in a very predictable way, but....i think that he has some valid points and there are for sure holes in evolutionary theory....i think that one of the main problems is that all of the information that we are using has come to light from a fairly reductionist body of work (thanks newton and all who came before and after). I see evolution on a much bigger picture and find it very limiting to look at just "biological evolution" in the larger picture of change. Religion has been a great way to find comfort in the unknowns of human knowledge and the fact that creatonisim and religious argument against the evolution theory exists and is persistant is evidence enough for me to think that there is still much to be learned on the subject. I think that some of the key "unknowns" are what basic mechanism allows plants and animals to grow in such complex ways, and how could these complex ways have ever occured from non-living or non "omnipotent being" sources. So now I will play bibs game....i saw that you quoted from Capra's web of life....so i am assuming you read the whole book, what is your take on self-organization? A simple example of how increased order can occur in an OPEN system is the case of when you pull the drain in your bath tub. Through the input of energy of gravity (hence making the bathtub an open system) indeed increased order occurs....a vortex forms from the chaos of exiting water and observed order is evident.....Since you have read all publications on evolution have you also read Wolfram's A New Kind of Science"....i think that Wolfram is hinting at some fundemental parts of evoultion, not just biological evolution but general "SYSTEM" evolution including evolution of solar systems, biological evolution including ecosystem evolution, and then on to the most recent emerging holarchy of memetic evolution which brings forth cultures and cultural change....Wolfram uses simple computer programs based off off cellular Automata to show that very very simple underlying rules can lead to extremely complex and unpredictable iterations. Here he is addressing the origin of this precieved complexity which is potentially analagous to the complexity seen in the natural world.
" But where does this complexity come from. We certainly do not put it into the system in any direct way when we set it up. For we just used a simple cellular automaton rule, and just started from a simple initial condition containing a single black cell. Yet the picture shows that dispite this, there is great complexity in the behavior that emerges. And indeed what we have seen here is a first example of an extremely general and fundemental phenomenom that is at the very core of this new kind of science. Over and over again we will see that the same kind of thing: that even though the underlying rules for a system are simple, and even though the system is started from simple initial conditions, the behavior that the system shows can nevertheless be highly complex. And I will argue that it is this basic phenomenon that is ultimately responsible for most of the complexity that we see in nature."
In our everyday experiences we have learned (thanks to reductionist mechanistic methedology) that an object (living or not) that looks complicated must have been constructed in a complicated (or devine) way. This comes from looking at everything (including living things) as derived from looking at building mechanical things and doing engineering where we are completely devoid of encountering systems like Wolfram has stated above. And because of this situation we never normally get an intuition about systems that may operate quite differently, such as nature and evolution.....so what about these ideas and what about self-organization, network theory, complexity theory, and chaos theory? how do these paradigms fit in with your thoughts on origin and change????

Quote, "...i think that Wolfram is hinting at some fundemental parts of evoultion, not just biological evolution but general "SYSTEM" evolution including evolution of solar systems, biological evolution including ecosystem evolution, and then on to the most recent emerging holarchy of memetic evolution which brings forth cultures and cultural change...." Those of us that believes in evolution never limited our thinking to biological evolution. I'm not sure where you got this idea, but I doubt very much it's from our many posts on this subject.

Im not familiar wit tte Wolfram work you mentioned frogsnferns. I am with the Gaiast works tthat include Capra. When he wrote his book, he could have cut about 3 chapters off when we discovered the overall coding sequences and ulttra conservatism portraayed in a genomic structure. So, his appeal to the self-organization would be almost a given if he haad the information we now take for granted. His Web of Life was published in 1996 and writtten in 1995. Te genome was only being uncoded aand things like STRs and pre-DNA worlds wasnt well understood.

Im not a Gaiaist , but I really think that the work of Lynne Margulis , who is,is very compelling. She states that
"Ok we know how DNA conserves a genic trait , and we think that genes and genomes are swapped like presents in certain environments" BUT, how did the initial life reactions begin?
Self organization among the tetrahedra of CHONSP (carbon, etc) allow the regulation of first and second order reactions which can lead to life. i like the collapsing double layer theory which allows clays to catalyze self replicating molecules.

As far as the eaqrth, Im not much of a philosopher so I cant picture the Living earth Gaia.Un less, of course, this is aa metaphor which just blows over my head

i think i was thinking more of bibs posts as far as the "defining evolution limited in the biological evolution realm"....just thought that the definition needs to be broader. I am a fan of Margulis and it was her text with swartz (spelling?), Five Kingdoms that i used in undergrad systematics class that really got me thinking and reading on these subjects. I guess i would consider myself a Gaiast in relation to my understanding of ecosystems and how they operate in relation to network theory. This was actually the thinking behind my above mentioned opposition to species centered conservation programs. Another point that i think that is often neglected in general definitions of evolution is the idea that evolution does not occur for the sole benefit and fitness of an isolated entity, it occurs within the ramifications and association of a networked community of organisms. In many instances evolution is directed by the needs of the immediate community and the feedback mechanisms found there. Simple example being that of a flower's shape is such that it benefits the relationship of pollinator and pollinated (of course always exceptions). Capra's book led me to Wolfram's work as well as Morowitz and the great book by Camazine et al called Self-Organization in Biological Systems. What really appeals to me about SOS is that it can occur in any number of "languages" it can happen chemically (Belousov-Zhabotinski reaction), through wind to create ripples in sand, through heating like Bernard convection cells, gravitationally, drying of clay or paint, and then the whole realm of organic pathways, genes, cellular organization of slime molds, on to social insects, on to ecosystem organization, neuron arrangement, human social structure. All of these things can also be laid onto and into one another in a holarchy fractal arrangement....and it all goes back to what Wolfram has hit on. Some good books to check out for anyone interested...Emergence of Everything by Morowitz, Nexus by Buchanan, The Hidden Connections by Capra, Out of Control by Kelly, Investigations by Kauffman, Thought as a System by Bohm, and a cool film that everyone should watch is Mindwalk....all goodstuff....

I guess I can see some of your points frogsnferns, butt I dontt look at benard structures as anytthing butt impeding convection cells (occur is standing wave ripple sets because a Hex is the most energy conserving shape in sed transport) Also a clay , substrate reaction is a form of BZ reaction in that it involves a double sett of electron transfer and ions tthat switch critical concentrations. most of tthese involve alkalines and alk earths in a phylohex shape.

In my work, Im less in tune with the "red queen" , but of environmentally driven evolution where the fitness confered to a single individual serves as a feedstock for the surviving and thriving daughter population.

Te creattion sciences use BZ birefringence as a 'proof" of a young earth, so remember, its all been thought and analyzed with differing outcomes based upon agendas involved.

We just tread water till Bib shows up now and again, glad to have a new member on board. Forgive my manners for not welcoming you this festive week. This entire hoo haa started with another thread that reviewed the teaching of Creationism in public schools in a number of states, and Bib sttarted this as an offshoot.

thanks for the welcome you are very well versed in these topics do you mind if i ask what your profesion is? I am an "amphibian specialist" (really hate the term specialist, but oh well) and get to deal with conservation issues which has got me trying to learn about ecology so that i can "save the frogs"...nice meeting you and look forward to learning....

Hi frogsnferns,

I can see the Wolfram book sitting on our bookshelf right now. I bought it for my husband for X-mas last year. He read a few chapters. Can't say as I've read any of it; I can't even get myself to read the last article c.i. posted.

Have you read any Gregory Bateson? If so, can you explain the whole cybernetics thing to me? Preferably in 250 words or less.

At last! Someone with an open mind. Thank you FNF.

I'm not sure frognsnferns really sees it your way, Bibliophile. Saying there are a few holes is a long way from throwing the baby out with the bath water.

So just call yourself a herpetologist :wink:

Im an economic geologist at present. Ive had a previous career in rare earth physical chem, . I deal in paleo a lot, so Ive been exposed to much of the latest in paleogenomics( a made up word ). Im sortof aactive in the EVolution/Creation issues tthat have popped up in certain of the states school districts

I love amphibians, they are so cool

I once saw a hellbender in an acid mine affected stream in W Va. II had no idea that these things could live in water tthat had pH close to vinegar. Unless this guy was a mutant.
Ive always been fascinated by the bright colors of some of our local salamanders. I always assumed that Costa Rican frogs developed some kind of commensal relationship that , meant "stay away, see all the bright colors" as for salamanders , here in the appalachians we have many bright red and yellow spotted ones that stand out like neon lights. Ive tried to consider the advantages of this bright paint job in the forested watersheds.

I would love to hear more of some of the books youve mentioned. I must admit, that when you get "specialists' status, its nigh iimpossible to keep up with everything even in our respective fields.

is there some genetic component to thhe drop in frog popultions or is the estrogen issue still a valid argument. I heard a talk by a toxocologist who was doing an estuarry loading study in the Chesapeake feeder streams. He found that, where there were major population decreases, there were concentraations of ABS and other detergent bases that acted as estrogen mimics.



I

Red Efts (immature form of the Eastern Newt) are common here in NH, and they are highly poisonous. Bright colors in salamanders are probably used similarly to bright colors in Frogs (warnings that they are poisonous, or mimics).

Now that's a real cutie, rosborne!

ok...my mind is swimming a bit, you guys have really brought me back to a bunch of mind teasers I had forgotten about for a few months now....cybernetics....i find it hard to differentiate it much from systems theory except that it deals more with the "function" of a system while systems theory deals more with structures of the system, but they are really just different sides of the same coin. Systems theory is intimately tied to Wolfram's Book and it all goes back to my intitial points (that i think i pretty much failed to convey effectively) here is an excerpt i found that may be useful in the definition of cybernetics and systems theory
"that however complex or diverse the world that we experience, we will always find different types of organization in it, and such organization can be described by concepts and principles which are independent from the specific domain at which we are looking. Hence, if we would uncover those general laws, we would be able to analyse and solve problems in any domain, pertaining to any type of system." This is what Wolfram is doing with his advanced cellular Automata, and what i was trying to state with voicing that we are looking at evolution with the wrong set of tools (we are using mostly analytical engineering methods to try to see something that operates in a way that is completely different than this. If anyone out there is really interested in learning more about these ideas there is a great resource web page that has many useful links arranged in a "wiki" style format and has a nice library of books online to read through, some that explictly go into human evolution in regards to systems theory in which self-organization is steeped. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/LIBRARY.html

Here is the particular article i was thinking of....what do you say we all read it and continue the discussion....Bib you up for this?

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/default.html#Heading3

oh ok frog stuff, this i can deal with a little easier I called myself an amphibian specialist because that is my actual job title...used to be a herpetologist now i am even nerdier....My expertise comes in central and south american frogs and the dart frogs with all of their spectacular colors and patterns are one of my favorites. I dont 100% agree with the simplistic aposematic coloration hypothesis for many of these animals and farmer picked up on some observations that lead to my questioning. Some of the species you are talking about like the Psuedotritons (brightest red ever) (northern red salamander) are completely fossorial and do not even come to the surface for reproduction, why would they benefit from being bright red?...also with poison dart frogs it is not unuasual to find upwards of 30 different color/patterns of the same species often seperated by no more than 100 yards....if these animals were truly relying on their bright and identifiable coloration to deter predation dont you think this would be a trait that was conserved through generations, especially when most predation occurs by birds that can make the distance between these populations in a matter of a couple flaps, oh and also many of the brightest colored ones really are not that toxic and in fact are less so than some highly cryptic species which are sympatric... and then there is the whole mimacry deal which i dont think is nearly as tidy as people want to assume either....all of these elements i think could be analyzed quite differently with the aid of systems theory

anyway this is getting quite off topic back to the land of naked apes....

oh forgot the frog population questions.... the particular problem i am helping to address now are the catostrophic extinctions happening in higher elevation central panama which are areas that are for all intents and purposes "pristine" habitat...what is effecting these populations is a destructive chytrid fungus that seems to have very recently made the transition from being a decomposer to living in the outer layer of skin of amphibians causing them to die within a week of contracting it...the chytrid has an aquatic larval stage and can be spread through bodies of water and animal to animal contact....the fungus thrives at temps right around 68 degrees and that is why the higher elevation species are being destroyed. Since starting in this field 5 years ago i can already say that i have worked with 2 species that no longer exist....that is like working with two dodos in a 5 year stretch....so all efforts going underway to aid with the crisis are all very reductionist in design and it really frustrates me so i turn to cybernetics for other options.....back to evolution? sorry for the threadjacking....