Evolution: the Facts.

[Darkhole]

(unfortunately for the atheists)

So, it must be....?

 

[Dinwar]

The observed time span does not allow for the development of that degree of complexity with the required intricate interplay in the time it was accomplished.

Please present your evidence. While abiogenesis and Precambrian paleontology aren't my strong point, I've dabbled in them enough to get by.

Carl Woese has already shown that none of the three domains (Craig Venter says four) are not descendents of any of the others,

This sentence means that all the domains are descendents of the others. I doubt that's what you meant, but your failure to type past a simple parenthetical does not engender a great deal of confidence in your ability to accurately assess what is one of the most difficult questions human beings have ever attempted to wrap our heads around.

Those were done way too effecientlt and accurately in way too short a time for spontaneity to be a reasonable explanation.

Please define spontaneity in this context. Giving you the benefit of the doubt (though the fact that you confuse "scientists" with "atheists" means I don't need to--you've ignored the enormous numbers of religious researchers in this field), I'd say you mean that the CHANGES, not the ORGANISMS were spontaneous. (THAT, by the way, is how you do an in-sentence parenthetical!) Even if that's true, it doesn't mean that the current model is wrong. Such spontaneity is not required, for the simple fact that organisms had been evolving for a few million years prior to the rise of the domains as we know them. Evolution started before LIFE started according to the standard models for abiogenesis.

Also, what specific genomes were these researchers working with? Because any modern genome--even the most primitive--has undergone a few billion years of evolution since the domains were established. There's simply no way to tell what the genomes were back when this was occurring with any accuracy. You're missing too much data.

There is however another set of persons, both inside and outside the scientific community, who are proposing facilitated or accelerated evolution.

None inside paleontology (or at least, none that are taken seriously--we have our share of crackpots, just like everyone else). Considering we're the field that studies the history of evolution, the dearth of researchers both in this field and supporting such ideas is rather damning of the notion. It suggests that an in-depth examination of the data causes one to conclude that the notion is false.

 

[Lowpro]

None of our ancestors were "single celled organisms". That's what the evidence currently indicates. (unfortunately for the atheists) The observed time span does not allow for the development of that degree of complexity with the required intricate interplay in the time it was accomplished. Carl Woese has already shown that none of the three domains (Craig Venter says four) are not descendents of any of the others, and the changes required by prokaryotes involved additions, deletions, fusions and divisions of chromosomes. Those were done way too effecientlt and accurately in way too short a time for spontaneity to be a reasonable explanation. There is however another set of persons, both inside and outside the scientific community, who are proposing facilitated or accelerated evolution.

Fischer demonstrated that it is possible for that complexity in the 30's dude...

 

[jimbob]

Fischer demonstrated that it is possible for that complexity in the 30's dude...

Any more info, or should I just wiki it?

 

[Lowpro]

Any more info, or should I just wiki it?

Well I always recommend Mayr's "What Evolution Is" which is a great book for understanding the modelling of evolution but it all comes from Fisher's Theorem

Of course the original theorem has been modified to include more parameters (epigenetics and evo-devo being additions to the model) but the interplay of absolute fitness versus mean fitness (if you were to model it stochastically it'd be the fixation of an allele in a population contingent on fitness and genetic drift and other variables by which they're contingent on and so on...). You can think of it basically as a model that can measure fitness from biases regarding intrinsic factors of the population and extrinsic factors of environment. AKA the classic heritability = Variation _{genetic variation} / Variation _{genetic variation} + Variation _{environmental variation}

I recommend Mayr's book for some insight but there's no single book or article that is comprehensive that I can think of. It's very hard to go from a qualitative description to quantitative methods but if you're interested I also recommend a textbook (by now mine is out of date =\ ) called Evolutionary Analysis by Freeman and Herron (oft referred to as "Freeman Herron") because it's almost all quantitative though still simple, has MANY case studies and references from contemporary databases and references and their online site is is updated with even more stuff:

http://wps.prenhall.com/esm_freeman_evol_4/61/15717/4023729.cw/index.html

EDIT: I probably wasn't specific to how Fisher answered the "complexity" part. Allele variation by mutation and expression factors (epigenetic factors, adaptive factors etc) is modeled by Fisher's model. Fitness is the only limiting factor (and because this is longitudinal the covariates and allele frequency change by selection differential S and heredity as a measure of h-squared where h-squared is the variability of the parents) but with a larger population the variance increases which can lead to fixation "quicker" for alleles that are selected for and this can move around as the covariates change. Fixation is proportional to the magnitude change of the mutation but it's not "rare" when one uses stochastic modeling. Because of this variability isn't limited by anything other than fitness and a large population can adapt to fitness and variability quickly. Every time creationists say that evolution reduces the allele frequency I want to slap them. The variation ALWAYS increases because selection pressures change AND it's stochastic anyways so fixation for one allele could mean allele frequency changes further down lineage (think chaos) ESPECIALLY if the fixation changes the selection coefficients. Variability always increases for larger populations. AND when you have smaller populations and drift occurs variability can (and usually) decreases BUT new fitness peaks (basically the alleles once fixed for fitness may no longer "matter" since the fitness actually shifts due to drift which basically means variation has a predictive increase because it's allowed to) Either way variation will increase as long as the population remains persistent and doesn't go extinct; not all lineages survive. And barring constant coefficients (only happens in a lab...sometimes) mutation rates exist anyways so again...variation due to biochemistry!

And stochastic modeling ALWAYS is efficient and because the model IS stochastic "too efficiently" is a meaningless phrase in regards to dgilman's conjecture.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I accept evolution and science. I think that there might be a spirit world that "tweaks" life or some natural occurences.

This problem involving genetics occurred to me and I am looking for some-one to give me a scientific answer.

Is this the thread? Or should a new thread one be started? If so please help me do so.


I can understand how genetics causes this feature and that feature. The human genome is about 3.2 billion base pairs. But how does it program the brain with the pre-loaded memory and operating system in order to function from birth?

In order for a buck to drop, and in minutes, stand, look around and know where to run, or where to find the mother’s milk, it needs to have reference memories. Where do those memories come from? Surely it is not coded in the genes?

The reason I use a deer as an example is that the human brain is still growing and developing until the age of 8 years - the human birth canal is too small for a bigger brain. Many of the human perceptions or referential memories are gained from environmental experience as our brains grow.

But the deer must recognise danger and run. It must avoid bushes and trees, yet be able to run through the grass. How does it know what is what? The underlying reference memory must already be in its brain! I do not accept that the genome is sufficiently complex to hold complex memories.

http://www.vanseodes...ception-memory/

Working memory helps us make sense of the world as we compare what we see to what we know. We compare new information to previously held information. It’s a meeting of bottom-up and top-down processing.
When new information is presented we search our permanent store in memory. When we find a match we recognize objects and concepts and identify them. When there’s no match we make inferences about this new information based on our previously held knowledge.

The neural network must grow so that the "base" memories are already a part - the brain at birth is not a "blank slate".

If the data in a brain at birth is much greater that the data storage in the genome, then where does it come from? Then a materialistic animal that does not receive "programming" from a "soul" (or other source) seems like an impossibility.

How a brain gets pre-programmed by a genome that appears to have insufficient capacity to hold that programming.

 

[steenkh]

I would like to know the answer to PartSkeptic's question too. As of now, my only ideas would be epigenetics? or "junk" DNA?

Is there any research in this area that has succeeded in giving answers?

 

[Akri]

I can understand how genetics causes this feature and that feature. The human genome is about 3.2 billion base pairs. But how does it program the brain with the pre-loaded memory and operating system in order to function from birth?

I'd suggest not thinking of the brain like a computer. Something tells me that analogy breaks down pretty quick (though I'm not very well-versed in this field, so I could be wrong).

In order for a buck to drop, and in minutes, stand, look around and know where to run, or where to find the mother’s milk, it needs to have reference memories.

Does it? How did you reach that conclusion?

Where do those memories come from? Surely it is not coded in the genes?

Assuming the memories are there, why can't it be coded in the genes? Just saying "surely X" doesn't make X true.

But the deer must recognise danger and run. It must avoid bushes and trees, yet be able to run through the grass. How does it know what is what?

They actually don't have to recognize danger. Deer (adults and young) will often run from things that aren't dangerous at all (humans do the same thing--ever see a leaf or something move out of the corner of your eye, and freak out for a second? That's how the deer feels).

As for avoiding bushes and trees, they can do that because when they DON'T avoid it they bump into it and it probably hurts. At the very least it doesn't let them move. Following Mom probably helps as well.

The underlying reference memory must already be in its brain!

Or there is no reference memory, and you're fundamentally misunderstanding the system at work.

I do not accept that the genome is sufficiently complex to hold complex memories.

And how do you know what the genome can do?

 

[Dancing David]

I can understand how genetics causes this feature and that feature. The human genome is about 3.2 billion base pairs. But how does it program the brain with the pre-loaded memory and operating system in order to function from birth?

So far as we know the only programming has to do with the automatic system events like the heart beat and breathing. There are some reflexes handles by the PNS of which the human infant has three the 'rooting' reflex, the bambini reflex and the Moro reflex.The rest of it develops as the human infant grows throughout its life. There is very little actual preprogramming in my opinion.

 

[Lowpro]

PartSkeptic is begging the question. It's not like the mother deer pisses off and away as soon as the newborn falls to the ground. It facilitates the suckling as most all mammalian mothers do. This action isn't just preprogrammed behaviors but behaviors that are elicited within the interaction of both organisms. At the least genes give the nudge. Animal behavior studies have often found that there is little "preprogramming" and a lot more facilitation of interactions (IE kingfishers teaching their young to "fish" by dive bombing) It sure would look preprogrammed if you ignore that they actually learned before AS an offspring and taught to their offspring. Less "memories" and more instinct. You don't need memories in order to experience anxiety; your body does that so well that you can do it while you sleep. Behavior is the culmination of MANY gene interactions, not just one. It's everything from anti inflammatory response and allostatic load to hormone regulation. Behavior and genes go together but are anything other than 1:1 gene interactions. Partskeptic...do not presume anything other than that.

A bigger mystery would be mating migration. THAT is a much more interesting topic of discussion than this mundane newborn behavior stuff, though I guess turtle hatchlings are newborns. Damn you nature, surrender your mysteries to us!!!


Anyways if you'd like to research more on genetics and animal behavior then nearly EVERYTHING Temple Grandin has ever researched will give you something in that (and yes even autism has its links)

 

[PartSkeptic]

If you are not an expert then I have to assume you are guessing and just giving your opinion.

Point me to an article that deals with this question. Have the intelligent design theorists debated this issue with the atheists or scientists?

A new-born deer must stand and be able to run within minutes to avoid being eaten. But even the "reflex" actions require programming. Which sequence of genes holds that data? And how?

The simplest of "intelligent" hardware requires a firmware program. I used to write such programs.

One can calculate the data capacity required for simple reflex programming, and for more complex visual recognition programs. One should also be able to calculate the data storage capability inherent in a genome sequence. Has anyone done this calculation?

Even so, how does such programming not only self-assemble the most complex thing in the universe, but arranges the assembly so the basic programming (firmware) is inherent in the structure?

 

[Akri]

Point me to an article that deals with this question. Have the intelligent design theorists debated this issue with the atheists or scientists?

Asking this question proves that you don't understand the basics of what you're discussing. This isn't an issue for "atheists", but for scientists in the relevant fields. Belief or non-belief in god(s) has nothing to do with it.

A new-born deer must stand and be able to run within minutes to avoid being eaten.

Only if there's something nearby trying to eat it.

The simplest of "intelligent" hardware requires a firmware program. I used to write such programs.

Brain =/= computer

 

[Dancing David]

If you are not an expert then I have to assume you are guessing and just giving your opinion.

Point me to an article that deals with this question. Have the intelligent design theorists debated this issue with the atheists or scientists?

A new-born deer must stand and be able to run within minutes to avoid being eaten. But even the "reflex" actions require programming. Which sequence of genes holds that data? And how?

The genes control the growth of the fetal deer and teh neural pathways through the PNS, the system of reflex need not be programmed directly but can be a consequence of feed back within the PNS system. So the pathways can be genetically driven to an extent by the enzyme gradient that cause the nerves to grow in certain places and fashions. Bu the reflexes do not have to be directly programmed by genes but more a consequence of structure and interaction

The simplest of "intelligent" hardware requires a firmware program. I used to write such programs.

really, you used to code gene sequences for biological development, please do tell. You are over driving your analogy.

One can calculate the data capacity required for simple reflex programming, and for more complex visual recognition programs. One should also be able to calculate the data storage capability inherent in a genome sequence. Has anyone done this calculation?

One should be careful about assuming one system has to be like another.

 

[steenkh]

One can calculate the data capacity required for simple reflex programming, and for more complex visual recognition programs. One should also be able to calculate the data storage capability inherent in a genome sequence. Has anyone done this calculation?

The data storage capacity of the genome sequence might not be relevant because in such calculations it is usually assumed that the same coding is not used for two different data, but in biology elements are reused, and the reflex behaviours might not be coded for at all, but be a consequence of the proper configuration of other elements.

I do however think it makes sense to try to find out just where this firmware is stored.

There are many instances of "firmware" that would warrant - and probably is researched. Brush-turkeys are an example of bird chicks that never see their parents, but dig their way out of the compost-heap their eggs were placed in, and almost immediately fly, because they come out fully equipped with feathers. These birds have to fend for themselves from the beginning, fly, and find food, all with no instructions from parent birds.

Another instance of "firmware" is species recognition. How do almost all species recognise their own? We know it fails in some cases, but mostly it works, and the necessary information needs to be stored somewhere.

Even so, how does such programming not only self-assemble the most complex thing in the universe, but arranges the assembly so the basic programming (firmware) is inherent in the structure?

As I pointed out, the information does not need to be coded in genes. It could be in the non-coding ("data"?) sections of the DNA, or it could be stored in an entirely different way.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Asking this question proves that you don't understand the basics of what you're discussing. This isn't an issue for "atheists", but for scientists in the relevant fields. Belief or non-belief in god(s) has nothing to do with it.

...Brain =/= computer

The atheists are anti-ID and the theists are pro-ID. They quote scientists who tackle such questions in a lot of detail. Have any such debates on topic taken place? If not, why not?

Brain - and what about the ability of some people to look at a column of figures and get the answer without error? Or multiply two large numbers. No computational capacity? AI? Memory? Deletion of memory or corruption of cognition? I think brains and computers have some attributes in common.

 

[PartSkeptic]

The data storage capacity of the genome sequence might not be relevant because in such calculations it is usually assumed that the same coding is not used for two different data, but in biology elements are reused, and the reflex behaviours might not be coded for at all, but be a consequence of the proper configuration of other elements.

I do however think it makes sense to try to find out just where this firmware is stored.

There are many instances of "firmware" that would warrant - and probably is researched. Brush-turkeys are an example of bird chicks that never see their parents, but dig their way out of the compost-heap their eggs were placed in, and almost immediately fly, because they come out fully equipped with feathers. These birds have to fend for themselves from the beginning, fly, and find food, all with no instructions from parent birds.

Another instance of "firmware" is species recognition. How do almost all species recognise their own? We know it fails in some cases, but mostly it works, and the necessary information needs to be stored somewhere.


As I pointed out, the information does not need to be coded in genes. It could be in the non-coding ("data"?) sections of the DNA, or it could be stored in an entirely different way.

You appear to have grasped my question, and given me some information. Thanks.

I can appreciate the "design" for a self-assembling brush-turkey being put into a set of genes - remarkable as it is - but how does cognitive memory necessary for visual recognition take place during that self-assembly?

The early stupid blind robots just kept bumping into the same wall endlessly. A pre-programmed algorithm was necessary to stop such behavior.

 

[Lithrael]

The atheists are anti-ID and the theists are pro-ID.

No. The pro-ID are theists but 'the theists' are certainly not pro-ID.

I think brains and computers have some attributes in common.

Having some attributes in common says little about how each one is getting there though. A bird and a bumblebee both fly but one uses aerodynamics and the other uses small-scale fluid dynamics, and you can't really extrapolate much about one from the other. Rather, you have to tackle the two systems separately as far as understanding how each one works to achieve flight.

 

[Lowpro]

Quick reply regarding birds: almost all birds have a highly developed occipital cortex and well developed eyes for depth perception, something robots lack. They also have superior capacity for memory though preprogrammed to fly I think is more a spurious conclusion. Their first instinct is to fly as most all birds have. It's the way they behave instinctually.

Again I want to reemphasize that regardless of ID/non-ID the efforts to understand behavior have a few things to keep in mind: Behavior is emergent and nonlinear while brain computations are linear even if they're a training set. Brain neurons are not 1's and 0's and actually have effects BETWEEN 1's and 0's per neuron and between neurons. The capacity for the brain to computer FAR outstrips any computer and as such the comparison between then is at best used superficially. To actually investigate the brain as a computer seriously would be silly.

Another thing about the brain with regards to memory is that the brain and memory aren't actually stored discretely; it is not modular (and yes I am aware of the Broca areas but the intercommunication and neuronal plasticity make localization incomparable to computers). Memory uses context accessibility which means that a stimuli primes for other stimuli. This is the theory behind memory. That's probably why memories are specific-ish but lead to many cognitive outcomes rather than a linear path. That's another difference between the brain and computers.

 

[steenkh]

You appear to have grasped my question, and given me some information. Thanks.

You are welcome.

I can appreciate the "design" for a self-assembling brush-turkey being put into a set of genes - remarkable as it is - but how does cognitive memory necessary for visual recognition take place during that self-assembly?

The early stupid blind robots just kept bumping into the same wall endlessly. A pre-programmed algorithm was necessary to stop such behavior.

Yes, that is all very interesting, but it is not an argument against evolution. The fact that are details we do not know enough about does not warrant scrapping the best theory we have: it warrants more research.

 

[steenkh]

Quick reply regarding birds: almost all birds have a highly developed occipital cortex and well developed eyes for depth perception, something robots lack. They also have superior capacity for memory though preprogrammed to fly I think is more a spurious conclusion. Their first instinct is to fly as most all birds have. It's the way they behave instinctually.

Yes, and surely it is of great interest how these instincts are stored?

Again I want to reemphasize that regardless of ID/non-ID the efforts to understand behavior have a few things to keep in mind:
I agree with everything you say about the brain/conventional computer comparison.