Article on The origin of complex life

@Foofie,

Good. I would hate to have you agree with me about anything.

@farmerman,

Quote:

NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT RANDOM.

I agree that the selecting of which mutations will survive, be passed on, and lead to a more complex life form are not random. They are not random because nature is programmed to make a choice. The way I understand Darwinian evolution, which mutations are made available for natural selection to choose from, is a random process. Am I mistaken here? If not, it seems to me, that it is quite incredible that the right choices to evolve to more complexity are made available randomly, to be selected naturally.

The only way anybody can learn the nuances of a theory is to parce. To evolve a head and legs from single-called organisms requires a lot of very specific and sequentially correct mutations. I agree that the climate and atmosphere must be conducive to provide the raw material and a home for complex organisms to live in. That is actually quite obvious and boring compared to the process involved with all is intricate steps necessary for evolving to complex life forms once the environment and raw materials are provided.

"Don't try to parce any further sonny." "Is your other name Layman" sounds like someone who doesn't have the patience or ability to explain how the proper steps always sequentially appear randomly in the genetic code for natural selection to select, or doesn't have a logical answer at all. But, I have been following you for years and know that isn't true. I am asking you to have patience with me again and explain what you know that I don't. Or are you saying that there is nothing more there, "survival of the fittest" is a vague capture all phrase that really explains no biogenetic processes to obtain higher complexity in life forms through evolution of naturally selected random mutations, and we are to accept it without question. Or is it because I am too stupid? Well I know that you are one the more intelligent people on this blog, and you can write scientifically in a way that is understandable to most. So, please, if not for my Layman mind, answer the parsing question for all the intelligent people reading this.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Good. I would hate to have you agree with me about anything.

Hey, you have a sense of humor. Who knew?

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

The way I understand Darwinian evolution, which mutations are made available for natural selection to choose from, is a random process. Am I mistaken here? If not, it seems to me, that it is quite incredible that the right choices to evolve to more complexity are made available randomly, to be selected naturally.

You are of course correct, not because I say so but because that theory has been expressed by so many respected scientists for so long in so many ways that to deny it is absurd. I don't mean the theory's correctness can't be questioned, but you can't question that that IS the theory without being facetious.

What I find amazing is how resistent some are to accepting the primacy of random chance to the theory. Random Mutations can happen without natural selection, but without random mutation, natural selection can't.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

I agree that the selecting of which mutations will survive, be passed on, and lead to a more complex life form are not random. They are not random because nature is programmed to make a choice. The way I understand Darwinian evolution, which mutations are made available for natural selection to choose from, is a random process.

Your presentation of the total facts behind evolution ar generally correct, your understanding is where we depart. Evolution is a two step process where mutations are mostly random and for a species they can be a myriad of them. The environment or the population or any edaphic (ground level) changes will SELECT from these phenotypes that sport the variabilities of the genotypes.

The genotypes that survive and succeed in these environment are said to hqve unergone natural selection. The natural selection tool is extinction or adaptation an breeding success.
So the next generations will carry that new (selected) gene pool and the next level of genes that develop , mutate , or result by "shuffling" due to sexual or asexual reproduction, these will present a new genotypic menu that is available to natural selection.

This has been pretty much where we are today although several recent past scientists had tried to state that its all a one step process in which the genes in the genotype are where nat selection occurs. Most scientists discount this because the very fossil record of sub-varieties of the same species show large numbers of different varieties that seem to occur within a tight time frame in the strata.

Its really not a big deal though natural selection does NOT imply random. Theres usually some factor in the environment that selcts FOR the winning species (or two). When you look at mice or rats you can see that many separate varieties of a species an many species of a genus vary widely and they all seem to FIT a specific lifestyle or diet.
Look at the types of iguanas that exist on the Galapagos Islands. Each seems to have adapted to a specific thing. The water dwellers have different tail configurations than lqnd dwellers. AND, these guys are found NOWHERE else on the planet .( Mexican and SA iguanas are all different from Galapagos iguanas.

Quote:

They are not random because nature is programmed to make a choice

You mean that you believe that nature is "designed" to affect a change in life ??.
The geologic record is kind of chaotic all over the planet. Because some life form responds to a changing environment by evolving dos not provide any conclusive evidence that this environment was pre planned. It gets kinda circular with that way of thinking

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Yeah, facetious. The problem is, I was serious. I am approaching from a world view that is viewed by an atheist as ridiculous. The ridiculous is always ridiculed.

In the end though, this is a math problem, and the chances of the right mutation appearing at the right time is one over a very large number. And one over a very large number approaches a value very near zero. When I see a house some body always built it. When I see a group of Great Danes and Poodles somebody always selectively bred them, 100 percent of the time. I'd much rather believe and search for answers that are likely to happen, rather than a next to zero chance of happening. For the beauty, complexity and diversity I observe to have happened by chance, makes me want to see if I can figure out how somebody rigged the game. I don't know why that can't be honestly discussed without ridiculing an honest open minded point of view.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Random Mutations can happen without natural selection, but without random mutation, natural selection can't.

variability and sexual polymorphism can occur without any speciific "mutation"> remember, gene mutation doesnt do a damn thing xcept code proteins. Somatic cells is where the action is
Even Nei's genetic "distance calcs" have reluctantly recognized that while mutations occur prior to all evolution. evolution steps of specific phenotypes occur wrt environmental planes. epigenetic uptake of mutations is gradual and can span generations and make offspring respond to the environment that the uptake was responding to.

Sometimes the "modeling" approaches leave out some basic evidence that must be accounted for

esnt.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The environment or the population or any edaphic (ground level) changes will SELECT from those phenotype that sport the variabilities of the genotype.

How come the right phenotypes always are there to be SELECTED when the mutations necessary to cause the necessary morphology to evolve from say single-celled to multi-celled to water animals to land animals to humans, when the chances of that happening are 1 over a very big number. And that 1 over a very big number has to happen over and over and over, which makes the number get bigger every time it happens in sequence.

Quote:

the next level of genes that develop , mutate, or result by "shuffling" due to sexual or asexual reproduction, these will present a new genotypic menu that is available for natural selection

Shuffling tends to mean a lot of changes available without any explanation for sequencing mutations over generations or bad mutations overruling good ones. Especially since today's bad mutation is necessary for tomorrows lung, limb, or womb. That would mathematically tend to lead to extreme flaws in the genetic code and extinction. The mutations would have to be small, almost always profitable towards evolution to a higher form, and at least somewhat sequentially correct. The chances for the menu to have the right selection appears to be 1 over a very big number over and over again.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

evolution steps of specific genotypes occur wrt environmental planes.

Quote:

epigentic uptake of mutations is gradual and can span generations

Could you give examples of these?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

I am approaching from a world view that is viewed by an atheist as ridiculous

I get that. It does not matter how logically you approach it, if your world view includes the possibility of a creator, anything you bring up is 'tainted'. I once used the standard math formula for calculating probability in a discussion of evolution and was it was immediately dismissed as 'Creationist math' ! Very Happy

I make every attempt to separate theological and scientific factors in these discussions but it makes little or no difference. You still get branded as a brain washed religious nut.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Somatic cells is where the action is

That's starting to sound Lamarkian. I'm not going to throw it out, but it does add one more layer to evolutionary complexity, causing it to lose some of its charm.

The problem with the discussion is that Darwinian evolution is so elegantly plausible and at the same time requires no supernatural factor, making it the Sine Qua Non for scientific acceptance. It's just so perfect in that sense.

It's going to take a lot of evidence to overcome that inertia. I think science is producing that evidence but the attachment to Darwin prevents that evidence from being seen in any other light. The holes in evolution are growing though. It's fun to watch from here in the cheap seats.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Is creationist math like normal math where 1/really big number is approximately zero, or is it like Darwinian math where 1/really big number means the only likely scenario because anything else means there was and/or is something bigger me and I really don't want to admit that could be a scientific possibility.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Pretty much just that way..

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

evolution steps of specific genotypes occur wrt environmental planes.

. Think about it once the frog family of amphibians was attained in time, evolution had FROGNESS to work with andwhatver resulted in time, was derived as a limited rang of species. We dont see frogs becoming apes or returning to fish.

Quote:

epigentic uptake of mutations is gradual and can span generations

Mutations can occur epigenetically . An example is that there is evidence that such epigenetic change (like drug addiction in a fetus can be expressed by the baby and become a generational thing)

Ive read that some of the Darwin "finches" on the various galapogos Islands, demonstrate epigenetic changes in bird beaks and diet preferences (most likely due to the availability of limited food resources). Then changes become fixed in an expanding genome of these finches.
Island biogeography studies are really good as labs of evolution since many island archipelagos arise as they "split off" from mainland and what goes with the island becomes an available "pallette" of life . Like the appearance of marine iguanas on the islands v terrestrial ones on the mainland

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

How come the right phenotypes always are there to be SELECTED when the mutations necessary to cause the necessary morphology to evolve from say single-celled to multi-celled to water animals to land animals to humans, when the chances of that happening are 1 over a very big number.

Im not even sure where your going here? You do understand that, as I said up above, once you are a frog you evolve further in "frogness" and whatever develops . I think you are somehow getting the chain of life confused. Things dont evolve from scratch as each new species appears. The concept of common ancestry is pretty well evidenced as a FACT AND biostratigraphy clearly shows that new life evolves through common ancestors through time.

Elephants didnt appear with Devonian Brachiopods or trilobites. In fact, NO MODERN Phyla (like birds, mammals, reptiles and even amphibians) appeared until After the Devonian . Elephant prototypes didnt occur until the Eocene .Actually more Kingdom and phyla appeared through the Paleozoic than supposedly appeared at the "cambrian explosion " which was actually about 20 -40 million years long

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

That's starting to sound Lamarkian.

Are you sure you understand what a "Somatic" cell is? Its any cell , organs and tissues NOT associated with reproduction .. Its the body structure.
Why does that sound Lamarkian. pigenetic uptake, is, I agree getting to sound like one of Lamarks proposals. Epigenetic uptake of an acquired trait , (like drug addiction in babies), NOW that sounds more Lamarkian to me.

I think that many scientists are quick to adopt changes in thinking much faster than the general public or those whose minds are more aligned with worldviews than with testable and falsifiable evidence

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Are you sure you understand what a "Somatic" cell is? Its any cell , organs and tissues NOT associated with reproduction

Yes, that's why I said this angle adds one more layer to explaining evolution.

If I'm following your gist, you are saying that new body plans are a result somatic cell mutation. This aspect of 'macro evolution' is probably the most difficult to explain and adding one more very indirect step from somatic to reproductive makes it that much more implausible.

Forgive my side thought here but your example of drug dependence being generational because of epigenetic influences gives credence to the old bible verse "The sins of the fathers are visited on the children to the third generation." Even I though that verse was pretty whacky until I read about that research.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The concept of common ancestors is pretty well evidenced as a FACT AND biostatigraphy clearly shows that new life evolves through common ancestors through time.

I agree 100 percent with that statement.

There are jumps in the fossil record where a lot of changes have to happen in a very short time. Stephen Gould tried to explain it away with Puncuated Equilibrium. It appears that at times the number of phenotype changes, that must be available, for natural selection by random mutations in the genetic code to cause the necessary morphological changes to support cladogenisis is statistically impossible. Especially when one looks at the exactness necessary in reproduction of DNA necessary to maintain an organisms health.

In some cases it appears, statistically and empirically, that either the changes had to be written into the initial DNA in preparation for future environmental changes, or in others it appears as someone or something is inventing new code for new body parts to add to the DNA mutation menu as it's evolving. Looking at the evolution from simplicity to complexity we see that, with such extreme variations, combined with the complexity we are understanding exists in bio genetics, we need to look for evidence in BIOGENTICS (not the fossil record) for an initial program written for expected environmental changes in the DNA of early life forms, or tampering along the way of the DNA of early life forms over time by someone or something. (Maybe it's still happening) The question seems to be a logical one, not one that should stir up such controversy and name calling. It doesn't have to have morality attached to it. Maybe Nature has a built in intelligence, that is physically undetectable to us, that adjusts the movement of atoms in the DNA of living things, in a similar way that my ideas move the atoms in the living matter of my brain. Maybe its Ego and Peter from Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2.😎

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

It appears that at times the number of phenotype changes, that must be available, for natural selection by random mutations in the genetic code to cause the necessary morphological changes to support cladogenisis is statistically impossible.

Thats basically a fact free assertion. How do you say that ? Im not sure that "natural selection by random mutations" even makes sense

Quote:

Especially when one looks at the exactness necessary in reproduction of DNA necessary to maintain an organisms health

how do you know whats in theDNA from a fossil??

Quote:

In some cases it appears, statistically and empirically, that either the changes had to be written into the initial DNA in preparation for future environmental changes,

sorta like the "hopeful monster" story eh". Why cant gnetic changes occur through time rather than all at once?? It makes more sense in a biological sense. We can see that a huge genetic diversity exists in living members of a single species, why not for fossil ones??

Quote:

in others it appears as someone or something is inventing new code for new body parts to add to the DNA mutation menu as it's evolving

so you think the organism isnt developing its own genetic diversity from what its inherited from its mammy an pappy??(as well as genetic mutations that it can experience prior to passing em on in its own offspring (if the mutatuions arent lethal??

Quote:

we need to look for evidence in BIOGENTICS (not the fossil record) for an initial program written for expected environmental changes in the DNA of early life forms, or tampering along the way of the DNA of early life forms over time by someone or something

well, we seem to be stuck with the fossil rcord and the myriads of related species of "the unlucky" masses we can see there does support natural selection as a biological vacuum cleaner.
We can see "fossil genes " in many species (cf. Sean Carroll, 2006 "Making of the Fittest"(pp117-126).W Norton LLC). These fossil genes are the same ones that some scientists want to turn back on to demonstrate how earlier species of a clade may have looked.. Has it been done yet? NO.. Dos anyone think its impossible at this point? I think thats a NO also. We understand how genes are turned on and off and several experiments with chicken embryos have demonstrated that its possible to resurrect chicken embryos with archeopteryx like teeth.
Other than that, due to the long term chemical instability of DNA it may be a long time (or never) before we can look back on the genomes of Cretaceous creatures. So the fossil record is the second best data that we have, as is paleoecology, anatomical changes in fossils through time, as well as Linnaean Taxonomy.
Your Gurdin of the Galaxy ref is lost on me. Im more a Bugs Bunny and Frank Frazetta kinda guy

Other than that, due to

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I'm not sure "natural selection by random mutations" even makes sense.

It doesn't make sense, it's a typing error. I meant " natural selection of random mutations.

Quote:

How do you know what's in the DNA of a fossil??

We don't. But we know DNA works today like it did yesterday, and statistical analysis of organisms living today shows that the number of mutations being available, at the right time, by random mutations for natural selection to choose, to increase complexity for the creation of new organs in an organism living today is near zero. That's to do it once. Now we must multiply that to account for variations we observe.

Quote:

Why can't changes occur through time?

Because the fossil record says that a lot of the time they didn't. Is Stephen Gould inventing Puncuated Equilibrium to solve a problem that doesn't exist? Punctuated Equilibrium is his hopeful monster, but it doesn't stand up to statistical analysis of biogenetics. Everybody likes coming up with nice stories but they don't do the mechanics and statistical analysis of the physical changes that need to be made biogenetically by random mutations.

Quote:

you think the organism isn't developing its own genetic diversity from what its inherited from its mammy and pappy??

Not unless mammy and pappy are smart enough to make sure the right mutations are available for natural selection to choose from to cause the massive changes in morphology necessary to make the jumps in the fossil record that caused Stephen Gould to invent punctuated equilibrium. It's a nice theory but is statistically impossibe.

Quote:

we can also see fossil genes.

What's leaving unnecessary genes in the code have to do with this. I already said I believe in evolution over time. I believe the model T evolved into the Ford F-150. It still has a cigarette lighter. I am glad it does so I can charge my phone. They could have took them out of cars when smoking really dropped off.

You should rent Guardians of the Galaxy volume 1 and 2. Fun movies with a good story.

1 Reply

Article on The origin of complex life

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know