Is evolution hanging on ?

[C4Cat]

You might like to read this, C4Cat:
https://epicgenetic.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/prdm9-my-favourite-gene/

Thanks. Interesting indeed.

However...
You keep going on about random vs directed mutations which is irrelevant to natural selection.
The fact that you think natural selection only occurs in situations where disasters affect the large majority of the population just demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of how natural selection operates. Perhaps you should read this http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25 and realise that natural selection operates irrespective of how variation occurs, whether it's random or not makes no difference to natural selection.

The link you provided above is interesting yes, and you're right, I did enjoy reading it but the fact that this gene "allows us to mix up our genes through recombination. It speeds up the divergence of animals into new, awesome and probably cute different species" is great and is obviously a driver of evolution. But some traits will survive and others wont. Some species will survive and others won't. Once again, natural selection operates independently of how the variation occurs and is the ultimate arbiter of how evolution progresses.

 

[Xarog]

Thanks. Interesting indeed.

However...
You keep going on about random vs directed mutations which is irrelevant to natural selection.

Because directed mutations work in the absence of natural selection.

The fact that you think natural selection only occurs in situations where disasters affect the large majority of the population just demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of how natural selection operates. Perhaps you should read this http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25 and realise that natural selection operates irrespective of how variation occurs, whether it's random or not makes no difference to natural selection.

I can read it as many times as you want, that does not mean that I accept the validity of the argument.

The link you provided above is interesting yes, and you're right, I did enjoy reading it but the fact that this gene "allows us to mix up our genes through recombination. It speeds up the divergence of animals into new, awesome and probably cute different species" is great and is obviously a driver of evolution. But some traits will survive and others wont. Some species will survive and others won't. Once again, natural selection operates independently of how the variation occurs and is the ultimate arbiter of how evolution progresses.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-an-1836-famine-altered-the-genes-of-children-born-d-1200001177
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989988/
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/how-nutrition-one-generation-can-change-genetics-next

Natural selection is not the ultimate arbiter of how evolution progresses. Darwin's argument postulates that the environment itself is the one making decisions about how the species will express mutations. It isn't. There is something else working against the environment in an intelligent fashion, and it is this force which is the primary driver behind evolution.

Edit: http://www.kurzweilai.net/why-evolution-may-be-intelligent-based-on-deep-learning

 

[Swa]

If natural selection is the only component of his theory, then his theory is refuted by virtue of it not being realistic.

Darwin never postulated a mechanism because genetics was unknown at the time. In fact if it was known with its complexity he would probably never have formulated it. It's moved on a lot since then but I don't see how you get to your conclusion, if anything neo Darwinianism is incorrect for making claims of random mutation. Darwin never even described evolution.

Who survives and who does not is not the primary driver of evolution. Do you not understand that part?

That depends on your definition of evolution. Evolution is merely change so in that sense it doesn't have any real drivers. If you see natural selection as prescriptive, i.e. it's an active agent that selects mutations it's indeed the driver. If you see it as descriptive, meaning it's merely the effect of who survives then it's essentially meaningless.

 

[DWAAS]

What I would like to know is why only our species evolved to this level. Yes sure there's a one digit percentage difference between our genome and that of the chimp, but still.
Look at what we actually DO as humans and compare that with ANY animal on the planet.
Why only us?

 

[C4Cat]

Because directed mutations work in the absence of natural selection.

Natural selection is never absent except when you create a totally artificial environment or override natural selection with specific breeding. Perhaps you meant that directed mutations work without reference to natural selection or independently of natural selection but you won't find anywhere in the natural world where natural selection is absent. It makes no sense.

I can read it as many times as you want, that does not mean that I accept the validity of the argument.

It's in one ear, out the other. You first need to understand what natural selection is, which clearly you don't as you keep saying things which demonstrate your lack of understanding. Like this:

Darwin's argument postulates that the environment itself is the one making decisions about how the species will express mutations.

No it's not. Darwin never mentioned mutations and the environment doesn't 'make decisions' about how species do anything. The environment may cause mutations in same cases but again, not because it decided to, it's just a consequence. Traits simply survive in the environment or they don't.

It isn't. There is something else working against the environment in an intelligent fashion, and it is this force which is the primary driver behind evolution.

Edit: http://www.kurzweilai.net/why-evolution-may-be-intelligent-based-on-deep-learning

I said in one of my earlier posts that "If you are correct and mutations are intelligently and creatively managed then perhaps nature is experimental and tries different mutations - nature may even 'remember' what works and what doesn't and so reuse mutations that have proven to work in the past (which makes sense to me)" so I agree with what's in the link you posted.

The article at that link also points out that:

“Learning theory is not just a different way of describing what Darwin already told us,” said Watson. “It expands what we think evolution is capable of. It shows that natural selection is sufficient to produce significant features of intelligent problem-solving.”

The article also makes the specific point that it is NOT at odds with 'natural selection' unlike Intelligent Design which which negates natural selection as an explanation. These authors specifically say their theory does not negate natural selection.

“This simple step from evolving traits to evolving correlations between traits is crucial; it moves the object of natural selection from fit phenotypes (which ultimately removes phenotypic variability altogether) to the control of phenotypic variability,” the researchers say.

Once again they do not discount natural selection or pretend it's not a driving force behind evolution as you do. And since Darwin had nothing to say about the genetic mutation mechanisms, phenotypes or randomness vs design in variability, it doesn't diminish his theory in any way. Even with 'intelligent' variability, if you want to call it that, some traits will survive and some will not because of how well they are adapted to an evolving environment. You just can't get away from that.

 

[C4Cat]

What I would like to know is why only our species evolved to this level. Yes sure there's a one digit percentage difference between our genome and that of the chimp, but still.
Look at what we actually DO as humans and compare that with ANY animal on the planet.
Why only us?

Aliens

 

[porchrat]

What I would like to know is why only our species evolved to this level. Yes sure there's a one digit percentage difference between our genome and that of the chimp, but still.
Look at what we actually DO as humans and compare that with ANY animal on the planet.
Why only us?

Why can only cheetahs run so fast?

Why can only peregrine falcons dive so quickly?

Why can only a handful of organisms live to be thousands of years old?

Why can only crocs reach a bite pressure of 5000PSI?

Why can only a handful of organisms survive in an anaerobic environment?

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera

There is no "level" that we're evolved to. You're thinking far too linearly.

 

[DWAAS]

Why can only cheetahs run so fast?

Why can only peregrine falcons dive so quickly?

Why can only a handful of organisms live to be thousands of years old?

Why can only crocs reach a bite pressure of 5000PSI?

Why can only a handful of organisms survive in an anaerobic environment?

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera

There is no "level" that we're evolved to. You're thinking far too linearly.

Really? You think we are going to compare the art, culture, scientific and technological advances of the human race with the bite pressure of a croc? Spare me -- can we get some serious people in here please!

 

[porchrat]

Really? You think we are going to compare the art, culture, scientific and technological advances of the human race with the bite pressure of a croc? Spare me -- can we get some serious people in here please!

Ultimately it is all the product of us evolving thumbs, a big brain and an upright posture. What you're talking about is technological evolution, it isn't the same thing as biological evolution.

There are things other animals do that we cannot. We don't have a bite pressure of 5000PSI, we can't run as fast a cheetah, we can't fly, we can't breathe underwater, we can't perceive light beyond our visible spectrum, we can't survive in the vacuum of space, we can't survive direct solar radiation, we can't see tiny objects kilometres away.

All animals are unique. All those that survive do so because they have a trait or traits that give them an advantage. We're not more evolved than other things, our advantage is just different. We're differently evolved. You need to set that sense of superiority aside before you attempt to understand the model or you're never going to grasp it.

Again, there is no "level" to evolution.

 

[Xarog]

Natural selection is never absent except when you create a totally artificial environment or override natural selection with specific breeding. Perhaps you meant that directed mutations work without reference to natural selection or independently of natural selection but you won't find anywhere in the natural world where natural selection is absent. It makes no sense.

In practice, evolution does not occur through natural selection, but through speciation brought on by events such as inbreeding, where phenotypical characteristics are typically drastically exaggerated in successful offspring. This is as a result of the DNA taking two nearly identical samples and thinking that because the same variables worked as well for both parents, exaggerating the crap out of those "positive" attributes must surely be a good idea. In this way, phenotypical speciation can essentially happen dramatically and within a single generation.

It's in one ear, out the other. You first need to understand what natural selection is, which clearly you don't as you keep saying things which demonstrate your lack of understanding. Like this:

No it's not. Darwin never mentioned mutations and the environment doesn't 'make decisions' about how species do anything. The environment may cause mutations in same cases but again, not because it decided to, it's just a consequence. Traits simply survive in the environment or they don't.

First off, 'making decisions' was a turn of phrase, not meant to be taken literally; use "determined by the environment" if you prefer. I did not think I would need to point this out, much like I'm sure Einstein would be irked if you took a religious interpretation to his statement that "God does not play dice."

Secondly, the fact that Darwin does not mention mutations in this case is irrelevant. He postulates a mechanism for evolution which is not the primary driver of evolution in practice. You're creating an equivocation between natural selection as a general idea/established fact and Darwin's particular incarnation of it. His version has been refuted even if some elements of it still survives to this day.

Once again they do not discount natural selection or pretend it's not a driving force behind evolution as you do. And since Darwin had nothing to say about the genetic mutation mechanisms, phenotypes or randomness vs design in variability, it doesn't diminish his theory in any way. Even with 'intelligent' variability, if you want to call it that, some traits will survive and some will not because of how well they are adapted to an evolving environment. You just can't get away from that.

If you read that paper carefully you will note that their version of learning does not postulate an external stimulus which measures success. The other links I have provided have established the existence of that stimulus as a fact.

And the problem with natural selection here is that you are saying that it is responsible for the changes in species. It isn't. It might be responsible for culling the unsuccessful changes, but it wasn't what drove the changes in the first place. It's not driving evolution because evolution would happen even without natural selection.

In fact, natural selection drives evolution the same way food drives your decisions. Just because food is an integral part of your life that you have to manage doesn't mean that it's responsible for your decisions. Natural selection is similarly not responsible for evolution.

 

[C4Cat]

In practice, evolution does not occur through natural selection, but through speciation brought on by events such as inbreeding, where phenotypical characteristics are typically drastically exaggerated in successful offspring. This is as a result of the DNA taking two nearly identical samples and thinking that because the same variables worked as well for both parents, exaggerating the crap out of those "positive" attributes must surely be a good idea. In this way, phenotypical speciation can essentially happen dramatically and within a single generation.

What do you mean by successful offspring?

 

[porchrat]

What do you mean by successful offspring?

They're out of the house by latest their mid 20s. Get a nice job, German luxury sedan, 3 bedroom house, marry a sexy blonde, have a few kids.

 

[C4Cat]

They're out of the house by latest their mid 20s. Get a nice job, German luxury sedan, 3 bedroom house, marry a sexy blonde, have a few kids.

I meant in real life

 

[Xarog]

What do you mean by successful offspring?

Well it depends from species to species, but obviously when inbreeding, the rate of offspring that are actually able to mature into an infant is dramatically reduced.

Typically only something like 30% of human pregnancies result in a successful birth. Invalid recombination sequences cause spontaneous abortions. You also get the possibility of "successful" individuals that can't pass their genes on because they're sterile, and obviously that's an evolutionary dead end.

 

[C4Cat]

Well it depends from species to species, but obviously when inbreeding, the rate of offspring that are actually able to mature into an infant is dramatically reduced.

Typically only something like 30% of human pregnancies result in a successful birth. Invalid recombination sequences cause spontaneous abortions. You also get the possibility of "successful" individuals that can't pass their genes on because they're sterile, and obviously that's an evolutionary dead end.

So just being born is success. Does being able to stay alive long enough to reproduce play any part in evolution?

 

[Bobbin]

There is something else working against the environment in an intelligent fashion, and it is this force which is the primary driver behind evolution.

Bobbin's Law (& Theory) of Survival

One day (Maybe when retired and have time) I'm really going to make that AI and prove this shyte! (Hopes)

If evolution occurred then evolution was possible before evolution occurred. That right there is where we will find "the force" That is Bobbin's Law of Survival.

Bobbin's Theory of Survival attempts to explain it and its implications and link it with abiogenesis and other science topics including human psychology and AI. But Bobbin has so far failed Bobbin even believes he can beat the stock market by developing and applying this theory.

WTF am I talking in third person :wtf:

 

[Xarog]

So just being born is success. Does being able to stay alive long enough to reproduce play any part in evolution?

Does food play any part in your decision making? When speaking of what causes your behaviour, should we point to food as the reason? I mean, if you starve, you can't think, right?

What I am saying is that the speciation happens even without natural selection because mutation drives evolutionary changes in such a way that the genome mutates away from phenotypes that induce evolutionary stress. Epigenetic cues about the environment serve as indicators as to what kinds of stresses the individual is suffering such that the information is passed onto their children and their children turn out differently from their parents and hopefully better adapted to deal with the environmental stresses that have been plaguing the adult. In this way, the genome as a whole seeks out advantageous phenotypes the same way our telescopes go about looking for points of light in the night sky. There's some kind of algorithmic process in our DNA that treats un-stressed individuals as data points with a very high signal to noise ratio and tries to seek out the signals in the genomic noise. It is my personal belief that the real benefit to sexual reproduction is that it allows the genome to have two datapoints to work from to engage in comparisons of relative fitness in terms of which phenotype is antagonising which stress responses in the environment.

So yes, natural selection exists and has an effect on this process, but "Darwinian evolution" the process is not. The real process is a million times more amazing than that. Much like the explanation for your decisions in life is a million times more amazing than "because food", even if "because food" has a grain of truth to it.

 

[Swa]

What I would like to know is why only our species evolved to this level. Yes sure there's a one digit percentage difference between our genome and that of the chimp, but still.
Look at what we actually DO as humans and compare that with ANY animal on the planet.
Why only us?

Percentage difference doesn't matter as much as what is different. Several chromosomes show signs of remodeling. Entire gene sequences are displaced, out of order or just switched around. And then we have that chromosome two which is usually explained as a fusion of two chromosomes. Well that's a half truth because they are more like two chromosomes which were integrated into one with the necessary supporting code. Comparisons often leave this all this out and just compare the common genes.

You'll hear the usual argument that we're just seeing things from our perspective and that every animal has something that's unique. Well again that doesn't explain the differences and why it's not something that's seen anywhere else. It also doesn't explain the apparent rapid development in areas such as our brain. Indeed why only us, the pinnacle of the universe that's enabled to rule over it.

 

[Bobbin]

Percentage difference doesn't matter as much as what is different. Several chromosomes show signs of remodeling. Entire gene sequences are displaced, out of order or just switched around. And then we have that chromosome two which is usually explained as a fusion of two chromosomes. Well that's a half truth because they are more like two chromosomes which were integrated into one with the necessary supporting code. Comparisons often leave this all this out and just compare the common genes.

You'll hear the usual argument that we're just seeing things from our perspective and that every animal has something that's unique. Well again that doesn't explain the differences and why it's not something that's seen anywhere else. It also doesn't explain the apparent rapid development in areas such as our brain. Indeed why only us, the pinnacle of the universe that's enabled to rule over it.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/how-and-how-fast-did-the-human-brain-evolve/

I'm no expert. Just linking a criticism to the human brain rapid development thing you mentioned which took all of 15 seconds to locate. Personally I've grown unimpressed by anything "anti-evolution", so I might no longer be too much into debating the topic anymore :erm:

 

[C4Cat]

Does food play any part in your decision making? When speaking of what causes your behaviour, should we point to food as the reason? I mean, if you starve, you can't think, right?

What I am saying is that the speciation happens even without natural selection because mutation drives evolutionary changes in such a way that the genome mutates away from phenotypes that induce evolutionary stress. Epigenetic cues about the environment serve as indicators as to what kinds of stresses the individual is suffering such that the information is passed onto their children and their children turn out differently from their parents and hopefully better adapted to deal with the environmental stresses that have been plaguing the adult. In this way, the genome as a whole seeks out advantageous phenotypes the same way our telescopes go about looking for points of light in the night sky. There's some kind of algorithmic process in our DNA that treats un-stressed individuals as data points with a very high signal to noise ratio and tries to seek out the signals in the genomic noise. It is my personal belief that the real benefit to sexual reproduction is that it allows the genome to have two datapoints to work from to engage in comparisons of relative fitness in terms of which phenotype is antagonising which stress responses in the environment.

So yes, natural selection exists and has an effect on this process, but "Darwinian evolution" the process is not. The real process is a million times more amazing than that. Much like the explanation for your decisions in life is a million times more amazing than "because food", even if "because food" has a grain of truth to it.

I was going to let this thread go as there is only so much one can say - if the person you're talking to is determined to ignore what you're saying, is there any point trying to explain it in a different way? Again? But **** it, I just can't let it go unanswered.

I know you think you're being clever with your meaningless 'analogies' which are not actually analogous in any way to the topic at hand.
The role of food in decision making is not in any way analogous to the role of natural selection in evolution.
Natural selection does not 'have an effect' on the process, it IS the process. Genetic variation, directed or not, is a necessary part of the process, but is not the entire process.

Perhaps the issue is that you forget that evolution does not happen on an individual level over the space of a generation but happens over many many generations and thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of years? I don't know where the basic misunderstanding is for you but you just don't get it.
When you say: mutation drives evolutionary changes in such a way that the genome mutates away from phenotypes that induce evolutionary stress, well you may be correct (the evidence is not clear) but that still is only a part of the process and the complete process is evolution by natural selection. Even if everything you say about the genome having this magical ability to think and reason and make decisions to mutate in specific ways, based on environmental stresses, is true - even then it's still just a part of the over-riding process of natural selection.
So, to be clear:

Would you agree that genetic variability, on it's own, is necessary but not sufficient for evolution?

You've claimed, for example, that "directed mutations work in the absence of natural selection" - but directed mutations in the absence of natural selection will not lead to evolution, not without the rest of the process.

So off the bat, we need to agree that genetic variability (whether random or directed) is necessary but not sufficient for the process of evolution to take place.

Is that one point something we can agree on?