Is evolution hanging on ?

[Swa]

You're right, it didn't make the same claims. Other researchers have subsequently used contemporary knowledge about genetics and epigenetics to argue that the observations the experiment made were valid. It doesn't say anything about the theory regarding those observations.

Your insistence that I must refer to the original research is thus nonsensical.

It's not nonsensical. The experiment could have been valid or not, I don't care. It wasn't set up to determine what you claim so you're still applying the same fallacy. If there's original research from these other researchers then present it and not their interpretation of another experiment.

Not inheritance, mutation provoked through inheritance.

Again I mentioned epigenetics and addressed it, so why you think I did not is beyond me. Also epigenetic changes themselves are not mutations.

In other words, the genome reacted to the epigenetic inheritance. Can you respond to the claims actually being made for a change instead of inventing your own interpretations and relentlessly pushing your I win button after knocking the straw men down?

Lol, exactly what you are doing. I suggest you read it again rather than your own interpretation. I know about the experiments on mice and epigenetic changes refers to changes in gene expression and not changes to the actual genes themselves or mutations as we call them. It's right there before the sentence you just pulled.

I have, it is up to you to say, explicitly, what is lacking in these substantiations, not merely to claim that their is not substantiation without offering anything to substantiate your own claim.

Indeed, to start with, why don't you explain to me in your own words what you think it is that I am claiming, and what principles you think I am basing my argument on.

You explain what you are claiming and provide the proper evidence to support it. As I just showed above you're just pulling things from your arse and applying selective reading.

 

[Xarog]

It's not nonsensical. The experiment could have been valid or not, I don't care. It wasn't set up to determine what you claim so you're still applying the same fallacy. If there's original research from these other researchers then present it and not their interpretation of another experiment.

What the experiment was set up to determine is irrelevant, so long as the observations themselves are reported accurately. In this case they are.

Again I mentioned epigenetics and addressed it, so why you think I did not is beyond me. Also epigenetic changes themselves are not mutations.

But they have been proven to provoke mutations. Your "also" is irrelevant, your mentioning of epigenetics does not acknowledge this reality. Until it does, your response has no bearing on reality.

Lol, exactly what you are doing. I suggest you read it again rather than your own interpretation. I know about the experiments on mice and epigenetic changes refers to changes in gene expression and not changes to the actual genes themselves or mutations as we call them. It's right there before the sentence you just pulled.

It is actual changes to the genes themselves.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26237076

Read this abstract. It's not even a controversial claim anymore.

You explain what you are claiming and provide the proper evidence to support it. As I just showed above you're just pulling things from your arse and applying selective reading.

No, actually you didn't. You don't even understand what you are arguing against, you show absolutely no appreciation of the information content of any of the links in your argument, and you have manifestly failed to explain what you think my argument even is. You're just randomly trying to poke holes and hoping that something sticks, dealing with something you don't even understand.

http://phys.org/news/2015-06-consequence-scientists-epigenetic-debate.html
http://phys.org/news/2011-07-epigenetic-memory-key-nature-nurture.html
http://phys.org/news/2012-02-inherited-epigenetics-fast-evolution.html
http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/8/1972
http://phys.org/news/2007-04-scientists-darwin-foundation-chickens.html

That last one is so awesome I think I'm just going to quote it for the beauty of its brevity:

Evolutionary theory ever since Darwin is based on the assumption that acquired traits, such as learnt modifications of behaviour, cannot be inherited by the offspring. Now, a Swedish-Norwegian research group, led by professor Per Jensen at Linköping university in Sweden, shows that chickens can actually inherit behavioural modifications induced by stress in their parents.

The scientists grew groups of chickens under stressful conditions, where a randomly fluctuating day-night rhythm made access to food and resting perches unpredictable. This caused a marked decrease in the ability of the stressed birds to solve a spatial learning task. Remarkably, their offspring also had a decreased learning ability, in spite of being kept under non-stress conditions from the point of egg-laying. They were also more competitive and grew faster than offspring of non-stressed birds.

To investigate whether there was any genetic basis for the effect, the research group examined the expression levels of about 9000 genes in the brain of the chickens. In birds exposed to stress, there was a number of genes where the expression was either increased or decreased, and the same genes were similarly affected in the offspring.

The results therefore demonstrate that both the changes in gene function and the behavioural changes caused by stress were transferred to the offspring. Both these effects were only seen in domesticated chickens, not in the ancestor, the red junglefowl. The scientists therefore speculate that domestication may have favoured animals which are able to affect the biology of their offspring through genetic modifications.

The results offer new insights into how animal populations may be capable of adaptation to stressful environments in evolutionary short times. This can help explain both the rapid development of animals during domestication, and evolutionary responses to changing conditions in nature.

And finally, here's a nice paper directly asserting that this process is what drives cancerous mutations:
http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/8/1323.long

Everything that I am invoking to validate my theory has already been demonstrated by mainstream genetic research.

Anyway, information stored in epigenetics that allows for "intelligent" reactions to the environment (memory) + stress induced non-random directed mutations provoked through that same epigenetic system and intergenerational memory conservation + bayesian "deep" learning = intelligent evolution.

 

[Xarog]

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/16/5932.abstract
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/12911035/
Nothing like making a back-up copy before you try tinkering with a new approach...

 

[C4Cat]

Ok Xarog, I've spent some time thinking about your argument and reading your links and I unfortunately still can't see any way that evolution could happen in the absence of natural selection, I don't see Darwin's theory as being refuted in any way. Obviously you have it all figured out and my lack of comprehension is my own slowness so perhaps you can answer some questions to help me understand.

When you say that genes have intelligence and can direct mutations appropriately does this mean that every individual of a species has there own unique design based on the intelligence and design of their specific genetic makeup? What I mean is this: every species has only unique individuals - in some species, those that are facing extinction, for example, there may only be a few individuals or a few hundred; but in other species, like rats and insects, for example, there are millions and billions of individuals, each with a unique genetic makeup, each with a unique set of traits. Unless you are an identical twin or clone, your genetic makeup is unique to you. Any mutations, therefore are unique to you. Any trait that becomes fixed in a species, in that it's always passed on and exists in a large percentage of individuals, originally started as a mutation in one single unique individual.

Would you agree with this?

 

[Xarog]

Ok Xarog, I've spent some time thinking about your argument and reading your links and I unfortunately still can't see any way that evolution could happen in the absence of natural selection, I don't see Darwin's theory as being refuted in any way. Obviously you have it all figured out and my lack of comprehension is my own slowness so perhaps you can answer some questions to help me understand.

Ok, first off, can you make sense the claims of this article, which I posted above (it's not long)?

Because if so, then I think it will help to clear up exactly where the lines of disagreement lie.

When you say that genes have intelligence and can direct mutations appropriately does this mean that every individual of a species has there own unique design based on the intelligence and design of their specific genetic makeup?

Each individual has a unique combination of the previous generation's DNA insofar as they have two parents. In this sense, each individual is simply a smaller sample of the greater whole, which is the entire genome, one datapoint in a spectrum of information. Whenever reproduction occurs, the two datapoints are combined to yield a new datapoint. Maybe it's novel, maybe it's a repeat of previous expressions; that's not what matters. What matters is how stressful that datapoint's life has been. That serves as telemetry for the genome's selection process.

What I mean is this: every species has only unique individuals - in some species, those that are facing extinction, for example, there may only be a few individuals or a few hundred; but in other species, like rats and insects, for example, there are millions and billions of individuals, each with a unique genetic makeup, each with a unique set of traits. Unless you are an identical twin or clone, your genetic makeup is unique to you.

No, not even identical twins have exactly the same genetic make-up. This is why DNA methylation is such an important field of study. Identical twins often have phenotypical differences between them, and those differences are thought to be as a result of epigenetic differences.

But your observation is apt in that a genome is only as diverse as the number of individuals that the genome is represented by. A species of only a few individuals has only a very narrow message bandwidth to figure out how to get out of the evolutionary extinction pit and thrive again. Every genome is driven to perpetuate itself, as a genome. It tries to select the best version of itself in order to do so.

Any mutations, therefore are unique to you. Any trait that becomes fixed in a species, in that it's always passed on and exists in a large percentage of individuals, originally started as a mutation in one single unique individual.

That's not the complete picture. The complete picture is that the genome itself is evaluating the success of these mutations. Good mutations are actively preserved, bad mutations are silenced or bred out. In many cases, the genome doesn't lose old functionality when it mutates new functionality, there's evidence to indicate that epigenetic processes first use gene duplication and then tinker with the copy instead of the original.

And as per above, the majority of the differences between humans, chimps, gorillas etc. are as a result epigenetic changes, not genetic mutation. Epigenetic tweaking is thus an incredibly powerful (and reversable) system which can control whether or not any particular traits are expressed or silenced.

Would you agree with this?

I prefer to speak the whole truth.

https://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/

When reading this article, imagine if the selection process that was mimicing natural selection was in fact inside our DNA instead of simply in the environment. Think of the implications; how fast would life in general be able to adapt (i.e. evolve) to novel situations?

What I'm basically saying is that if the principles by which evolution operate are like a super computer, then you can't really see what's happening if you try to pull a couple of chips out and describe their architecture and how they might relate to one another. To understand how evolution truly works, you have to look at all of the chips as being part of one message. Each genome is a different message. When species speciate, it means the genomes have drifted so far apart that they can no longer meaningfully communicate.

Darwinian evolution is to this idea as Newtownian gravity is to general relativity. Yes, in certain respects, there are elements of truth to the principles that Darwin enunciated. But the actual real life process of evolution is orders of magnitude more reactive, complex, intelligent and just downright elegant.

 

[C4Cat]

Ok, first off, can you make sense the claims of this article, which I posted above (it's not long)?

Because if so, then I think it will help to clear up exactly where the lines of disagreement lie.


Each individual has a unique combination of the previous generation's DNA insofar as they have two parents. In this sense, each individual is simply a smaller sample of the greater whole, which is the entire genome, one datapoint in a spectrum of information. Whenever reproduction occurs, the two datapoints are combined to yield a new datapoint. Maybe it's novel, maybe it's a repeat of previous expressions; that's not what matters. What matters is how stressful that datapoint's life has been. That serves as telemetry for the genome's selection process.


No, not even identical twins have exactly the same genetic make-up. This is why DNA methylation is such an important field of study. Identical twins often have phenotypical differences between them, and those differences are thought to be as a result of epigenetic differences.

But your observation is apt in that a genome is only as diverse as the number of individuals that the genome is represented by. A species of only a few individuals has only a very narrow message bandwidth to figure out how to get out of the evolutionary extinction pit and thrive again. Every genome is driven to perpetuate itself, as a genome. It tries to select the best version of itself in order to do so.


That's not the complete picture. The complete picture is that the genome itself is evaluating the success of these mutations. Good mutations are actively preserved, bad mutations are silenced or bred out. In many cases, the genome doesn't lose old functionality when it mutates new functionality, there's evidence to indicate that epigenetic processes first use gene duplication and then tinker with the copy instead of the original.

And as per above, the majority of the differences between humans, chimps, gorillas etc. are as a result epigenetic changes, not genetic mutation. Epigenetic tweaking is thus an incredibly powerful (and reversable) system which can control whether or not any particular traits are expressed or silenced.


I prefer to speak the whole truth.

https://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/

When reading this article, imagine if the selection process that was mimicing natural selection was in fact inside our DNA instead of simply in the environment. Think of the implications; how fast would life in general be able to adapt (i.e. evolve) to novel situations?

What I'm basically saying is that if the principles by which evolution operate are like a super computer, then you can't really see what's happening if you try to pull a couple of chips out and describe their architecture and how they might relate to one another. To understand how evolution truly works, you have to look at all of the chips as being part of one message. Each genome is a different message. When species speciate, it means the genomes have drifted so far apart that they can no longer meaningfully communicate.

Darwinian evolution is to this idea as Newtownian gravity is to general relativity. Yes, in certain respects, there are elements of truth to the principles that Darwin enunciated. But the actual real life process of evolution is orders of magnitude more reactive, complex, intelligent and just downright elegant.

Well, personally, in my opinion, you can't get more elegant that evolution by natural selection but I digress...

Again the first article was interesting but doesn't refute Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in any way (you really should read it sometime)

The second article was also interesting but you seem to have misunderstood it. I did like this quote: As predicted, the principle of natural selection could successfully produce specialized circuits using a fraction of the resources a human would have required.

But more to the point, which is helping me understand how evolution in the absence of natural selection is possible:

With regards to the bolded bit above, how would DNA select instead of the environment given the following:

Would you agree that in the natural world there is a constant 'fight' for survival? Limited resources, space and of course other creatures who have to 'eat' to survive? So, for example, while the moth has clever DNA in it, producing the best camouflage it can, the bird has clever DNA in it producing the best eyesight it can. If the moth is to survive and pass on its genes to the next generation it must evolve camouflage that can enable it to remain unseen by the bird but, on the other hand, if the bird is to survive and pass on it's genes to the next generation, it must evolve eyesight that's good enough to see through the moths camouflage, or it will starve. Do you agree that all life is in a constant struggle for survival in this way? How does this fit into your theory?

Oh, last thing. Saying you prefer to speak the whole truth makes you sound like a preacher and we all know that preachers can't be trusted. None of us know the whole truth, now do we?

 

[Xarog]

Again the first article was interesting but doesn't refute Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in any way (you really should read it sometime)

You're holding that position dogmatically without explaining why in this instance. That is not useful or productive, as it will just redirect the conversation into a loop that started a few posts back.

The second article was also interesting but you seem to have misunderstood it. I did like this quote: As predicted, the principle of natural selection could successfully produce specialized circuits using a fraction of the resources a human would have required.

No.

I am not misunderstanding it. I am telling you that they do not see the implication of the experiment. The experiment put in an artificial control which literally compared each iteration of the code to see precisely which one worked the best to fulfill the arbitrary specifications of a human. The ones that worked best were selected by the experiment. The only thing that I am saying is that this process is inside our DNA as well, and it is also making such selections, but based on its own criteria. As soon as you add this trivial component (from the perspective of evolutionary complexity), then natural selection as a mechanism for evolution becomes completely and utterly passive and secondary. Then your DNA is making the adaption choices, and the environment plays as big a role as the environment plays in ruling the decisions you make to run your own life.

The environment does not choose for you.

But more to the point, which is helping me understand how evolution in the absence of natural selection is possible:

With regards to the bolded bit above, how would DNA select instead of the environment given the following:

Would you agree that in the natural world there is a constant 'fight' for survival? Limited resources, space and of course other creatures who have to 'eat' to survive? So, for example, while the moth has clever DNA in it, producing the best camouflage it can, the bird has clever DNA in it producing the best eyesight it can. If the moth is to survive and pass on its genes to the next generation it must evolve camouflage that can enable it to remain unseen by the bird but, on the other hand, if the bird is to survive and pass on it's genes to the next generation, it must evolve eyesight that's good enough to see through the moths camouflage, or it will starve. Do you agree that all life is in a constant struggle for survival in this way? How does this fit into your theory?

The individual will not matter much in this way. You can take the individual out, but I'm arguing that the genome will still know by extension which camoflage patterns are working and which aren't. The ones that get removed simply help the genome to better know which models are successful and which aren't; That's telemetry. Natural selection would imply that the genome cannot learn from the mistakes of those who have already died. As for the bird's eyesight, that's a relative measure, you will note not many animals are sight specialists; the better your eyes, the better your brain needs to be to interpret the information your eyes are seeing, the more energy is spent trying to keep the visual system functioning, and the greater demands your sight has on your diet.

Also, can you explain horizontal gene transfer in terms of natural selection?

Oh, last thing. Saying you prefer to speak the whole truth makes you sound like a preacher and we all know that preachers can't be trusted. None of us know the whole truth, now do we?

"The whole truth as I know it" suffices for this context. If you argue in favour of a flat earth, I'm going to argue that your model leaves out how gravity is supposed to work; that's fair, right?

 

[falcon786]

Sorry the derail but something that nobody could ever explain to me satisfactorily is how did flight evolve?

 

[porchrat]

Sorry the derail but something that nobody could ever explain to me satisfactorily is how did flight evolve?

Google it. You'll get far more comprehensive explanations than you will on here.

 

[falcon786]

Google it. You'll get far more comprehensive explanations than you will on here.

I could've if I wanted that but I'm more interested in members views here.

 

[porchrat]

I could've if I wanted that but I'm more interested in members views here.

Weird. I'd be more interested in getting my question answered but whatever.

 

[C4Cat]

You're holding that position dogmatically without explaining why in this instance. That is not useful or productive, as it will just redirect the conversation into a loop that started a few posts back.

For the same reason I've given multiple times before. Darwin never made the assumption that acquired traits, such as learnt modifications of behaviour, cannot be inherited by the offspring. It makes no difference to his theory of natural selection. This is exactly why I keep reiterating that you should actually read Origin of Species for yourself, because you continuously say, incorrectly, that Darwin said this, or natural selection means that.
Darwin’s process of natural selection has four components:
1) Variation. Organisms (within populations) exhibit individual variation in appearance and behavior. These variations may involve body size, hair color, facial markings, voice properties, or number of offspring (for example). On the other hand, some traits show little to no variation among individuals—for example, number of eyes in vertebrates.
2) Inheritance. Some traits are consistently passed on from parent to offspring. Such traits are heritable, whereas other traits are strongly influenced by environmental conditions and show weak heritability. The fact that learnt modifications of behaviour can, in fact, be inherited by the offspring makes no difference. The only requirement is that some traits are consistently passed on from parent to offspring
3) High rate of population growth. Most populations have more offspring each year than local resources can support leading to a struggle for resources. Each generation experiences substantial mortality.
4) Differential survival and reproduction. Individuals possessing traits well suited for the struggle for local resources will contribute more offspring to the next generation.

In order to refute his theory you would need to show that the above components are incorrect. Showing that dna might be intelligent or that modifications in behaviour can be inherited refines his theory, it doesn't refute it.

The funny thing is that every single link you've posted acknowledges evolution by natural selection. You seem to be the only one who doesn't see it.

No.

I am not misunderstanding it. I am telling you that they do not see the implication of the experiment. The experiment put in an artificial control which literally compared each iteration of the code to see precisely which one worked the best to fulfill the arbitrary specifications of a human. The ones that worked best were selected by the experiment. The only thing that I am saying is that this process is inside our DNA as well, and it is also making such selections, but based on its own criteria. As soon as you add this trivial component (from the perspective of evolutionary complexity), then natural selection as a mechanism for evolution becomes completely and utterly passive and secondary. Then your DNA is making the adaption choices, and the environment plays as big a role as the environment plays in ruling the decisions you make to run your own life.

The environment does not choose for you.

Perhaps you missed this bit:

The concept is roughly analogous to Charles Darwin’s elegant principle of natural selection, which describes how individuals with the most advantageous traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. This process tends to preserve favorable characteristics by passing them to the survivors’ descendants, while simultaneously suppressing the spread of less-useful traits.

But anyway they have created artificial evolution, the implications for natural evolution are nil.

The individual will not matter much in this way. You can take the individual out, but I'm arguing that the genome will still know by extension which camoflage patterns are working and which aren't. The ones that get removed simply help the genome to better know which models are successful and which aren't; That's telemetry. Natural selection would imply that the genome cannot learn from the mistakes of those who have already died.

Citation? Whether or not the genome can learn from the mistakes of those who have already died makes no difference to natural selection. It's been shown to be unnecessary (that's the elegance of natural selection), evolution can happily proceed without such mysticism, but if it's true, it makes no difference. Individuals still need to compete and only the best adapted traits will survive, with or without prior learning. Remember also the environment is itself evolving so what worked yesterday, may not work tomorrow.

As for the bird's eyesight, that's a relative measure, you will note not many animals are sight specialists; the better your eyes, the better your brain needs to be to interpret the information your eyes are seeing, the more energy is spent trying to keep the visual system functioning, and the greater demands your sight has on your diet.

It was just an example of how individual living organisms have to continuously compete with each other for survival.

Also, can you explain horizontal gene transfer in terms of natural selection?

Horizontal gene transfer is irrelevant to natural selection in the sense that the organisms are still subject to the same force of natural selection. If the transfer is beneficial to survival and confers a useful function, it will be incorporated and inherited, if not it won't be.

"The whole truth as I know it" suffices for this context. If you argue in favour of a flat earth, I'm going to argue that your model leaves out how gravity is supposed to work; that's fair, right?

Bad metaphor. More like: If I argue the world is round, you're going to argue that things fly so that refutes gravity and proves the earth is flat.

 

[Xarog]

For the same reason I've given multiple times before. Darwin never made the assumption that acquired traits, such as learnt modifications of behaviour, cannot be inherited by the offspring. It makes no difference to his theory of natural selection. This is exactly why I keep reiterating that you should actually read Origin of Species for yourself, because you continuously say, incorrectly, that Darwin said this, or natural selection means that.
Darwin’s process of natural selection has four components:
1) Variation. Organisms (within populations) exhibit individual variation in appearance and behavior. These variations may involve body size, hair color, facial markings, voice properties, or number of offspring (for example). On the other hand, some traits show little to no variation among individuals—for example, number of eyes in vertebrates.
2) Inheritance. Some traits are consistently passed on from parent to offspring. Such traits are heritable, whereas other traits are strongly influenced by environmental conditions and show weak heritability. The fact that learnt modifications of behaviour can, in fact, be inherited by the offspring makes no difference. The only requirement is that some traits are consistently passed on from parent to offspring
3) High rate of population growth. Most populations have more offspring each year than local resources can support leading to a struggle for resources. Each generation experiences substantial mortality.
[-]4) Differential survival and reproduction. Individuals possessing traits well suited for the struggle for local resources will contribute more offspring to the next generation.[/-]

Dude. You're not listening. Natural selection is refuted because the model is overly simplistic and does not account properly for the fact that something other than nature is making choices with respect to the expression of traits. In other words, the characteristics are not inherited from parents, they are expressed according to the genome's reaction to particular stress responses. This leads to dramatic shifts in the expression of phenotypes across the population as the population as a whole shifts to deal with new environmental stresses (or more likely the resurgance of old ones).

In order to refute his theory you would need to show that the above components are incorrect. Showing that dna might be intelligent or that modifications in behaviour can be inherited refines his theory, it doesn't refute it.

Wrong.

The funny thing is that every single link you've posted acknowledges evolution by natural selection. You seem to be the only one who doesn't see it.

No, they don't, you're being selective in your interpretation, as per above. You see "foundations of Darwin's theory shaken" and dismiss it like it doesn't exist.

Perhaps you missed this bit:

The entire reason that they still teach newtonian gravity in high school is because it's roughly analogous to general relativity. And yet Newtonian gravity is refuted in that it does not pertain to objective reality. And frankly, neither does Darwin's natural selection.

But anyway they have created artificial evolution, the implications for natural evolution are nil.

Unless evolution doesn't actually happen by natural selection in practice.

Citation? Whether or not the genome can learn from the mistakes of those who have already died makes no difference to natural selection.

Because then the fitness of the individuals is not being determined by natural selection, it is being determined by "artificial" (as in to make an artifice) selection by the genome.

It's been shown to be unnecessary (that's the elegance of natural selection), evolution can happily proceed without such mysticism, but if it's true, it makes no difference.

Lol. Right, so determining that evolution as a fact is driven by a completely different factor never envisaged by Darwin, but you say Darwinian evolution could theoretically happen, so evidence be damned, Darwinian evolution is not refuted. That's not logical.

Individuals still need to compete and only the best adapted traits will survive, with or without prior learning. Remember also the environment is itself evolving so what worked yesterday, may not work tomorrow.

Environmental variation has been remarkably stable for the last 300 million years or so. Sure, it might get hotter or colder, but it can only get hotter and colder so many times before successful organisms can re-tool their phenotypes to deal with either situation on demand within generational timeframes, and the predator-prey dynamic has similarly been stable since the emergence of the physical senses.

It was just an example of how individual living organisms have to continuously compete with each other for survival.

Right, and if each organism's genome is actively switching survival strategies in spite of the natural environment, then natural selection is not what is driving that evolution.

Horizontal gene transfer is irrelevant to natural selection in the sense that the organisms are still subject to the same force of natural selection. If the transfer is beneficial to survival and confers a useful function, it will be incorporated and inherited, if not it won't be.

Right, so it's the existence of the evolution of novel species that have never been seen before in the environment through a process that isn't natural selection.

Bad metaphor. More like: If I argue the world is round, you're going to argue that things fly so that refutes gravity and proves the earth is flat.

You know what, since you like analogies, let me put it like this:

Natural selection is to evolution like social Darwinism is to statecraft.

 

[falcon786]

Weird. I'd be more interested in getting my question answered but whatever.

Sometimes filtering through tons of different views on Google can be tedious, here however it's a bit more interactive and you can get the exact information you want relatively easier while giving opponents to that view an open platform to comment on it. Most other sites are basically only the authors interpretation of that idea.

 

[Bobbin]

Sorry the derail but something that nobody could ever explain to me satisfactorily is how did flight evolve?

Depends on flight of what. Birds or bats?

I actually have not googled that but I'd imagine in a simplistic sense something to do with acquiring greater distances in jumping from tree to tree and also increasing efficiency in migration with the seasons got that right. I could be very wrong though.

 

[Splinter]

Sorry the derail but something that nobody could ever explain to me satisfactorily is how did flight evolve?

It's all just a bio-mechanical mechanism using the laws of physics? It's the same as to question how do amoeba's move; how do mammals walk; how do fish swim; how do earthworms...urrm, delve?

 

[Swa]

What the experiment was set up to determine is irrelevant, so long as the observations themselves are reported accurately. In this case they are.

And the observations don't show a conclusion either way over your stance precisely because they weren't set up to. Don't know why you want to argue this. You always seem intent on just arguing for argument's sake.

But they have been proven to provoke mutations. Your "also" is irrelevant, your mentioning of epigenetics does not acknowledge this reality. Until it does, your response has no bearing on reality.

Then present this proof. I already addressed that the article makes no mention of it. How many times do I have to say that?

It is actual changes to the genes themselves.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26237076

Read this abstract. It's not even a controversial claim anymore.

Not from the article you quoted. Changes to epigenetics is not changes to the actual genes themselves or genetic code. As for your pubmed article, old news. It's been known for a long time that changes to the epigenetic structure can effect the entire cell, including repair mechanisms, so no surprise in some instances mutations occur alongside such changes. It's not evidence of directed evolution as you claim. So... still stabbing in the dark it seems.

No, actually you didn't. You don't even understand what you are arguing against, you show absolutely no appreciation of the information content of any of the links in your argument, and you have manifestly failed to explain what you think my argument even is. You're just randomly trying to poke holes and hoping that something sticks, dealing with something you don't even understand.

Err... you completely misread what your own article said and focused on the one sentence where the previous sentence contradicted your claim. So yeah I pretty much did, more than you.

http://phys.org/news/2015-06-consequence-scientists-epigenetic-debate.html
http://phys.org/news/2011-07-epigenetic-memory-key-nature-nurture.html
http://phys.org/news/2012-02-inherited-epigenetics-fast-evolution.html
http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/8/1972
http://phys.org/news/2007-04-scientists-darwin-foundation-chickens.html

That last one is so awesome I think I'm just going to quote it for the beauty of its brevity:

So the last one is your smoking gun? If so you have even less than I thought. While an intriguing take on it there's no evidence of what you speak of. No genetic changes even.

And finally, here's a nice paper directly asserting that this process is what drives cancerous mutations:
http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/8/1323.long

Everything that I am invoking to validate my theory has already been demonstrated by mainstream genetic research.

Anyway, information stored in epigenetics that allows for "intelligent" reactions to the environment (memory) + stress induced non-random directed mutations provoked through that same epigenetic system and intergenerational memory conservation + bayesian "deep" learning = intelligent evolution.

Cancerous mutations are not beneficial, they are harmful! Still no evidence of what you claim. As for epigenetic changes, I've yet to see evidence that there's always the same response. Some animals adapt and pass on their epigenetic information while others don't. So it's nothing more than an extension of random mutations + selection. Not the genetic programming you described that seeks out beneficial genetic mutations under stress, so no intelligent evolution. Epigenetic changes also cancel and overwrite themselves at some point, usually in around the 4th generation from what we see, so no permanent "evolution" taking place.

 

[Xarog]

And the observations don't show a conclusion either way over your stance precisely because they weren't set up to. Don't know why you want to argue this. You always seem intent on just arguing for argument's sake.

You're talking rubbish. The original observations are not the same as the subsequent analysis made by contemporary scientists re-interpreting the data according to information that has subsequently been made available elsewhere. There's no rational reason to demand that the original findings must also contain the same conclusions as the subsequent study performed on the original experiment.

And frankly, every other response is more of the same lunacy, so I'm not even going to bother.

 

[Bobbin]

@swa, I never really asked IIRC. If I may, what exactly is your stance on evolution?

Is it...

a) It is all BS and certainly untrue, everything was just created as is by something out there (popped up and shaped into existence)
b) It is probably true but is "intelligently guided" by something out there
c) It is true (And perhaps you just like to debate the mechanics of it)

...or is there something else I've missed?

Given my perception of you, you're a born again Christian (I think?) and likely the answer is a. Correct? If so, do you accept any possibility of being wrong though or is this a non-negotiable? (is there any merit in discussing it?)

I won't leave you hanging if by chance you're even remotely curious - my stance is:

a. Is an extremely strange proposition for me to take seriously if I'm honest. And is also useless to me as there is nothing for me to discover, learn and use in this version. I must just relent reality to a higher power? I do not like that idea at all

b. Is a small maybe/possible for me, but for both a. and b. I really don't like the assumption of intelligence in an ethereal sense at all anyway. Intelligence is very physical to me - attached to life - and makes no sense existing beyond life. Also strange that we then try place this concept beyond life (Makes me wonder who was made in who's image). Besides, there's too much for evolution than against it - so I have to accept it occurs in some form or another.

c. My personal favorite as it means I have a lot to learn and use and develop from. I also try keep things "real" and "physical" and prefer to only take challenges against evolution if an equally real and physical alternative is presented (Which I'm not aware of). So I'm quite happy to contest evolution if we stay within these bounds.

 

[Swa]

Xarog, you are so full of it to say the least. Yes there are rational reasons to demand just that. We don't come up with supported theories by piecing together different experiments. Your way is the worse way of doing science.

As for your actual theory, there's nothing in your links to support it. You may think there is but you're mistaken as they make totally different points. I've been looking into epigenetics probably longer than you have and nothing you've presented is new to me. Quite an exciting field as it can fill in quite a few gaps in how creatures adapt and possibly how they pass on adaptations and also to explain some diseases, but nothing in it to suggest a long term evolutionary path much less directed evolution functioning intelligently on its own. It's also not necessarily cause and effect. I've seen how genetic mutations can cause epigenetic changes so something to keep in mind when reading an article.