| From: Esra | 13/07/00
9:07:26 |
| Subject: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98009 |
| I am confused about what life
form can lay claim to being the most sucessful on Earth. Ask most people
and they will tell you us. I believe it surely must be bacteria. That have been in existance for over 350 million years and survived in many varying chaotic climates. Their numbers are also extremely large compared to ours and if life exists outside our planet it would most likely take the form of bacteria. Does our complexity really make us superior. 95% of all living creatures that have walked the Earth at some time in our history are now extinct. One day this to could be us. But Bacteria will survive while Life remains possible on Earth. Am I wrong or is our own perception of how great we think we are, clouding our understanding of how unexceptional we might be? Also, do people think that this might be why the need for a god is so strong, to make us believe we are some how superior to every other life form? | |
| From: Chris (Avatar) | 13/07/00
9:17:18 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98012 |
The answer depends exclusively on the conditions you set for qualifying as "most successful". I'd argue that someone with a reasonable knowledge of zoology could make an argument that any species is the most successful by changing the conditions of success to match the desired species. Cheers Chris | |
| From: michael c ® | 13/07/00
9:19:52 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98013 |
| It also depends on whether you
want to say which species is the most successful because although bacteria
as a whole have done pretty well you can't say that one particular species
of bacteria has done vastly better than the rest. Michael C (FTB) J | |
| From: Esra | 13/07/00
9:27:02 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98016 |
| Compare say mammals to bacteria.
Can anyone put forward an argument that mammals are more superior in any
terms than bacteria, remembering without bacteria, all mammals
die! | |
| From: steve(primus) ® | 13/07/00
9:29:46 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98018 |
| After billions of years of
evolution surely any species alive today is as successful as any
other? | |
| From: tobe ® | 13/07/00
9:37:57 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98020 |
| I think also comunication a vital
part of being succesfull and we humans have been given the best way of
communication on this earth | |
| From: Martin B | 13/07/00
9:53:15 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98023 |
| Well some whales had the ability
to communicate half-way around the world at ULF until humans started
getting their internal combustion engines into the water.
:-( | |
| From: Scooter ® | 13/07/00
9:54:55 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98024 |
| Our species is slowly killing
itself, how can that be called successful. | |
| From: Carmel ® | 13/07/00
10:16:18 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98028 |
| I had a really cool answer all
worked, and then my computer crashed and I lost it all... so this is going
to be the patchy, make-shift version... Firstly, a definitive answer to this question is really difficult. It is my personal opinion that no one animal alive today is any more successful than any other. This is because in order to be alive and successfully reproducing, then that animal MUST, by definition be the most successful organism in that particular niche. Whether that is accomplished by a symbiotic relationship with another organism is secondary. Esra, you correctly point out that our Bacterial Friends make our lives possible. However, what you fail to consider is that we in turn help to make their existence a heck of a lot easier as well. It is entirely possible that if mammals were to be suddenly struck from existence, then several bacterial 'species' may well disappear (it should be noted that the concept of species can't really be applied to bacteria or viruses as they don't reproduce sexually...) Of course the other major point here is that because of their tiny genomes, high mutation rate and their ability to transfer genes across 'species' (via plasmids) they are able to adapt to environmental changes far more rapidly than we are... That doesn't mean that they are 'more successful' but perhaps 'more adaptable'. | |
| From: drewser ® | 13/07/00
10:43:26 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98037 |
| this has me
thinking....(oh-oh) what defines that something is living???? and arent humans just lots of germs replicated(iknow in early conception we go through what is known as the germ state when the mesoderm, endoderm and ectoderm cells are still just that(germs).( i think its also known as primitive streak???) my point being that even tho we are human , wre still just a bunch of atoms thrown together, so i would say humans arent the most successfull life form...altho i think as far as nature is concerned we are definately a success story???, just an aside, havent trees/plant cells been around for a long time too???? i noticed you didnt include that as part of your argument????(now im prob off the track...lol) | |
| From: Carmel ® | 13/07/00
10:56:20 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98047 |
| First of all, my argument
referred to organisms, and I used mammals and bacteria as examples because
they were used previously. But you could apply exactlu what I said to
plants if you wish. As for defines what is living... it gets really fuzzy... Bacteria are alive, parasites are alive, viruses are not, is generally a good rule. And then we have prions, which also are not alive. Human's aren't really 'a bunch of germs'. Our bodies are made of systems, each system contains organs, each organs have differnt tissues and each tissue contains cells. Each cell contains the same DNA, but expresses differnt genes. It is a complex and integrated system. If you remove a cell from you body, it doesn't survive, basically. | |
| From: giant squid | 13/07/00
11:03:28 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98054 |
Naturally, by any objective standards, the most successful species on earth is the one with the largest tentacles. GIANT SQUID | |
| From: friend | 13/07/00
11:12:33 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98062 |
| wouldn't the one who made us all
be the best as he invented us all | |
| From: DV (Avatar) | 13/07/00
11:16:13 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98069 |
| The amino
acids? | |
| From: friend | 13/07/00
11:18:34 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98072 |
| surely we have more design that a
buch of acids radomly put together over a long period of
time | |
| From: Esra | 13/07/00
11:18:46 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98074 |
| I think I may have errred in
using the word successful in my post. It is good to read the varying views
on this matter. I think what I am really trying to say which I do not
think people have picked up on is that do us humans have a belief that we
are somehow superior because of our developed conciousness?? I used
bacteria as a way of demonstrating that our existance of 2 million or so
years pales in comparison to the history of bacteria. And that human
evolution is only a small piece of Life's grand puzzle. Do you
agree?????? | |
| From: friend | 13/07/00
11:23:40 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98085 |
| we humans are only a tiny part of
the universe but that does not make us nothing. Animals(or whatever they
are) such as viruses ect. are also important as well as more readily
available ani,als like wales and mice. | |
| From: DV (Avatar) | 13/07/00
11:28:16 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98092 |
| Esra: broadly, I agree with
you. friend: The randomness is only one part of it. THe other part is natural selection, which generally reinforces random mutations that achieve positive results. | |
| From: Carmel ® | 13/07/00
11:29:06 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98095 |
| No. Evolution IS life. Life is
all about evolving into something better suited for life in our particular
niche than we currently are ourselves. The thing you have remember is that bacteria and viruses are not primitive. They are not 'less evolved' than we are. They are just different. Viruses in particular are amazing, they have evolved beautiful simple and elegantly complex ways of doing things. I certainly would say that any organism is more evolved than any other... | |
| From: Zeus | 13/07/00
12:05:15 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98155 |
| I define life as an organism that
reproduces. All life has to repoduce, to say viroses arnt alive is a
difficult question. Some frogs and reptiles in extremely cold areas are
frozen in winter when frost and snow make life difficult so body function
is ceased but do defrost when the weather is suitable, this doesnt mean it
is dead, the same way with viruses out of an organism they cease to
function but in the body they reproduce. As far as palaeotologists are
concerned the oldest organisms are ALGAE followed by
STROMATOLITES(colonian algae)so they would have to be the most successful
LIFE form, but when it comes to Intelligence, Eye sight, Hearing, Species
number, adaptability other species take over. But as you know humans can
control our own destiny other species cant do
that. | |
| From: Joseph | 14/07/00
10:55:52 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98731 |
| The dominant theory at present is
Darwin's theory of evolution. According to Darwin, there is no measure of
success other than adaptivity. If it survives, it is
successful. But evolution, by definition, is an on-going process. Bacteria have indeed been around longer than humans, but they are less complex. Evolutionary success does not descriminate against later-evolved species. All are successful, as long as they survive. Darwin's theory is, however, very basic. Its premises are very non-descriminatory. But it is also very pragmatic. There is no denying that something is successful if it has managed to survive. What is needed is a theory that retains the bredth and pragmatism of Darwin, and some of the value judgments that are probably inherent in evolution in any case: that the increase in complexity towards consciousness is worthy of recognition. Humans are no less successful than bacteria, but maybe we are "better". The problem with establishing a new, value laden, theory of evolution, is that we must find a frame of reference by which to compare species. The current, broad, frame of "what the environment allows to survive" obviously won't do. Where do we find a new frame of reference, other than in scripture and other such nonsense? I'm afraid that, for the time being (until a credible frame is devised) we are left with our own opinions on the subject. My opinion is that humans are better than bacteria, but no less successful. | |
| From: DV (Avatar) | 14/07/00
11:05:55 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98737 |
| Joseph, may I ask you a concrete
question? What phenomena are poorly accounted for by the current set of theories pertaining to evolution by way of natural selection? | |
| From: Carmel ® | 14/07/00
11:17:10 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98746 |
| Actually, I've been racking my
brain trying to think of one also... I can't think of one. Current
theories are pretty good at explaining things, if you know how to interpret
them properly ;) | |
| From: Andrew ® | 14/07/00
11:17:51 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98747 |
| It could be said that human's are
the most successful species on the planet. We could reasonably say that we
are able to extinguish or let live any species on the planet. We could
wipe out all life if we really really felt like it (this would of course
lead to our own destruction, but for now we won't worry about that. Leave
that to our grandchildren to sort out), and similarly we could raise one
species above the rest and allow it to flourish unnaturally. That kind of
power isnot neccessarily a measure of success, but you could argue it.
| |
| From: Jennii | 14/07/00
11:23:37 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98754 |
| I have a book that you should
check "Forbidden Achaeology" by Michael Cremo. Its about $80, and very indepth. It doesn’t suppose a theory, just real facts on human archaeology finds dating 2.8 billion years old. | |
| From: DV (Avatar) | 14/07/00
11:32:03 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98762 |
| Although I'm always interested in
2.8 billion year old human archaeology... | |
| From: Jennii | 14/07/00
11:32:44 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98763 |
| well for your sake I hope so,
Michael Cremo is co-author, and it is a BIG book, and is older than 1995,
but not sure when it was actually
published. | |
| From: Jennii | 14/07/00
11:36:37 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98772 |
| This find, that was 2.8 billion
years old, are mettalic shephere, and some had three parallel grooves
aroung the equator, they were found in South Africa. It's just a thought as to how far it all goes back. | |
| From: Andrew ® | 14/07/00
11:37:52 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98775 |
| Why do people always say, "They
don't build them like they used to"? Hasn't anyone ever thought that
perhaps they learned from experience? :) Only a small percentage of male elephant seals ever get to mate -- most spend their lives growing fat while watching the action from a distance. All this goes to show, I think, that we're just TV and some beer from a total brotherhood of nature. (Joseph Moore) | |
| From: CJW | 14/07/00
12:46:20 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
98830 |
| (Apologies if this formatting
cocks up) If you bring up the question of arrogance, it implies that you have found a way of judging what we are doing. Please enlighten us. The dictionary definition of arrogance is : making unwarrantable claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming ; insolently proud. Therefore, to prove that we are being arrogant, you have to prove that our superiority (abstract) is a pretension (abstract). By the way, who said we were superior? I thought we were just clubbing our way to where we wanted to go. Every species has the "right" to do whatever it likes. So it's a bit difficult to be arrogant in this context. The question of whether we should do whatever we like is an entirely different one. The judgement of whether we should is where the arrogance suddenly appears. Alas, I think we have no choice in the matter, so the judgement can go where it fits. If you adhere to the dictionary definition, there are two ways of being arrogant (as I can figure): (1) by inflicting lies on others. (2) by operating in a blindingly complex field and pretending that your rights/opinion is superior. (Examples: economics and cardigan selection.) Naturally, someone can always claim that warrantable claims are unwarrantable. So the definition is mostly unworkable (i.e. abstract). It is only through making great mistakes that we can see our supposed arrogance. We can say that we were arrogant to pump CFC into the atmosphere. I don't think it would be correct though. We simply made a mistake. It is probably arrogant to fart too. CFCs may have turned the planet into an environmental utopia, in which case we would no doubt congratulate ourselves. (It may yet, by removing us from the planet.) Andrew says that we should leave the problems to our children. I agree, as this will encourage them to invest in more scientific research. | |
| From: Joseph | 15/07/00
11:01:44 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
99406 |
| DV, the answer is obvious from my
explanation: the descrimination between surviving species on the basis of
design. Evolution by natural selection is absolutely basic. It does not
give preference to any particular design: as long as it is adaptive, it is
selected. The design inherent in the environment for the purposes of selection is unknowable, if indeed it exist at all. You might as well call the environment "god" for all the explanatory power it has in distinguishing between one design and another. On the other hand, the environment is very democratic. Survive to procreate and you are a success. | |
| From: Joseph | 15/07/00
11:17:26 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
99408 |
| Carmel, you may have missed the
point. It is one thing to say thet there is a fundamental connection
between a species (or its evolution by natural selection) and the
environment. It is another to say that, of the abundant species which have
survived, there is an inbuilt preference (by design) for one species of
another. The difference is the same as the difference between democracy (all adaptive species are equally selectable in a broad ranging environment of many niches), and heirarchy (amongst the species which survive there is a principle or objective framework by which it it possible to discriminate and establish preferences). Natural selection fails to descriminate a heirarchy. Indeed, it fails to raise the issue. It is assumed in natural selection that the course of evolution does not follow a particular teleology. There is no specific design at the top of the evolutionary pyramid. Whether natural selection is in error in failing to raise this possibilty is a matter of opinion. Certainly, as NS is structured, there is no provision for the possibilty. What we need to examine is whether there is a parallel theory (not inconsistent, but delving into this further question ie the heirarchy based upon the democracy). We need to discover if there is a design bias beyond niche selection without introducing social constructs based on insecurity supported by scripture and the like. | |
| From: Joseph | 15/07/00
11:21:04 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
99410 |
| And in the process overcome our
tendancy to say: I didn't know there was room for another theory, I guess
there isn't room for another theory.
Create. | |
| From: DV (Avatar) | 15/07/00
11:42:53 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
99414 |
| Evolution by
natural selection is absolutely basic. It does not give preference to any
particular design: as long as it is adaptive, it is selected. As long as it is adaptive? What ever do you mean? THere will be circumstances where a radical adaptation (which may involve a more complicated "design") will produce a creature with a light survival edge over its ancestors. | |
| From: Joseph | 17/07/00
11:00:45 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
100483 |
| What is your point, DV?
Obviously, if a more complicated trait is advantageous, the creature will
survive better than its ancestor. But then again, the environment might
change, an the trait becomes disadvantageous. That is the problem with
making value judgments between survivors. If it survives, it is
successful; now, but maybe not later. Consequently, judgments about particular adaptive traits of surviving species or individuals within species are hazardous. Under Darwin's broad and basic theory, the direction of selection can't be predicted with any certainty. Indeed, it is only after the mutation has arisen and been tested by the environment (in a particular place and time) that it can be said to have joined those species that are successful survivors (for the time being), or not. You seem to have missed my point, again, about the possibility for a theory which does more than the basic, almost tautological: if it survives, it is selected for the traits it has acquired by mutation. Such a theory would give a certain framework against which to compare species. The parallel theory I am considering can be compared to Darwin as you might compare a bulls-eye to all other positions on a dart board. Darwin would say that if you hit the dart board, which is the environmental range, you survive. I would say that if you hit the bulls-eye, you are better. Obviously, there would be traits which distinguish a bulls-eye from the periphery. Also, there may be catastrophes which shift the environment to favour other parts of the board. The position of the bulls-eye has to be taken as an average over environmental conditions on our planet, which are subject to change. Now, what would such an average look like? And, can it be applied to other environments on other planets? Is it an environment absolute in its range (given the formation of accretion discs, solar systems, small rocky planets for the three bears etc.)? It is an ambitious project, but one which someone should undertake. Until then, we are left with only the most basic theory connecting the emergence of life to the environment. Not only basic, but given the vagaries of the environment as Darwin sees it, incapable of prediction. We can only know the path of evolution after the event of mutation and survival. I just think we can do better. | |
| From: DV (Avatar) | 17/07/00
11:43:46 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
100504 |
| My point is that the current
range of theories support the development of more complicated species.
There is no need to invoke another layer of theory to account for what is
observed in the ecosystem and the fossil
record. | |
| From: Carmel ® | 17/07/00
11:58:31 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
100516 |
| Joseph, I like a lot of what you
said, but I'm not sure I agree with your ultimate conclusions. What you say appears to be correct, however your analysis and interpretation of it belies a, perhaps... simplistic understanding of the full rammifications of Darwinism. The theory itself is beautifully simple, on the surface. However, in reality it is a strikingly complex issue, one that takes many people a lifetime to fully comprehend. I only pretend to have th most basic understanding of what is going on, so it might very well be that it is I who is the one not understanding things. The... thing (for want of a better word...) with Darwin's theory is that it relies heavily on the theory of spontaneous mutation... not orchestrated and controlled mutation (this is pretty fascinating for me, because he came up with long before the whole DNA mutating thing was discovered... gosh how I would have liked to have insight into his mind!). Anyway, this to me is the single most important aspect of ANY theory that is going to explain evolution Mutation at a molecular level is indeed a spontaneous occurence. And it is this spontanaeity (sp?) that lead to changes in phenotype that alter the course of speciation. Any theory of evoltuion must depend on the development of mutation arsing spontaneously. Which means, intrinsically, that you cannot 'predict' evolution. Of course the other major factor here is that it is also fairly tricky to 'predict' major environmental changes, upon which the phenotypical changes may be selected. However, excusing this fact for now, and focusing soley upon the molecular changes that arise, it becomes remarkably clear that a predictive model would fail hopelessly, simply because of the molecular mechanisms involved. As for your ideas on 'degrees of survival', I agree with them, for the most part. However, you speak as though this is not how Darwin explains evolution. If you hit the bullseye, then you are indeed 'better' and therefore you are going to be more successful than your neighbours! However, what you seem to beleive is that there exists a model whereby we can predict exactly where the bullseye is. Which we can't do, not because of failings with Darwin's Theory, but because of the physical limitations of DNA mutation! | |
| From: Joseph | 18/07/00
11:09:09 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
100945 |
| Okey Dokes. Here we
go. First, DV, clearly the theory of evolution lends itself, by definition, to the occurrence of more complex species. And if the environment supports the mutations that arise, that's great. The other layer of theory kicks in to draw together the environmental fit to the more complex designs, and establish preferences. As it so happens, the more complex designs may be more fit than the less complex. And yet Darwin doesn't necessarily make distinctions on that basis. To Darwin, a bacteria (our starting point in this thread) is as capable as a human of being selected. Each has its niche in a broadly supportive environment. I am narrowing that environment, in an absolute sense, consistent with the tendancy of evolution to create greater complexity. Believe it or not, you are already half way there. Carmel, no doubt the emergence of any particular, more complex, species as a predictable, weighted, outcome is difficult to reconcile with mutation if, indeed, mutation is entirely random. First, is it entirely random, and, secondly, note that it has taken billions of years of cumulative (tried and tested layer upon surviving layer) mutation to evolve a human (for example). You seem to understand molecular biology ( probably more than me). Perhaps you should have a look at Ted Steele's book Lamarcke's Signature. The immune system, in particular (and crucially), seems to be prone to feedback. Of course, the second point is that if evolution is broadly directed (towards humans, for example), then the accumulation of the broad range of possible mutations will zero in on that design over time. Remember, time in this case is billions of years. Thus it remains a moot question whether there is a zeroing in effect to evolution ( and therefore a possibly predictable path to the adaptivity of species). There are other thing I could say relating to the thermodynamic fit of species and their environments as a factor in selection, but that will have to wait for another day. In concluding, I think there is room for a more weighted, and predictive theory that the random-mutate and if-it-survives-it-is-selected theory of Darwin. No doubt Darwin was smart, and his theory lends itself to complex kinds of fitness, but it does not, ultimately, predict or discriminate. to be prone to feedback. | |
| From: James Richmond (Avatar) | 18/07/00
13:03:48 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
100983 |
| Natural
selection fails to descriminate a heirarchy. Indeed, it fails to raise the
issue. It is assumed in natural selection that the course of evolution
does not follow a particular teleology. There is no specific design at the
top of the evolutionary pyramid. You are assuming that there is an evolutionary heirarchy which can be distinguished. I doubt that this is true. In evolutionary terms, the only question worth asking is: "How well adapted is this organism to its environment?" It is impossible to say which of two species is "better" unless you specify exactly what is meant by "better". If we compare two species which do not directly compete, how can we judge which one is "better"? There are a couple of common misconceptions which are worth pointing out here. Firstly, the collection of species is not like a pyramid with single celled animals at the bottom and humans at the top. Rather, it is like a tree, with the earliest forms of life at the bottom, and later forms making distinct "branches" further up. Humans are just one branch on the tree. There are many neighbouring branches, all representing species which have evolved and still survive today. The single celled animal branch is one which joins the "main trunk" further back than the human branch, but it has grown to the same "size" as the human branch. Does this make single celled animals "better" than humans? Secondly, considering factors such as "intelligence" to indicate one species is "better" than another is a bit anthropocentric, don't you think? Single celled animals have survived much longer than humans, yet we would not regard them as "intelligent". This seems to me to indicate that intelligence is just one way of surviving and adapting to an environment. It is not the only way, and it may not be the "best" way. Why should we assume that humans are "better" than other life forms, just because we happen to be human? Half of the evolutionary picture is random mutation; the other half is natural selection. The possibilities for mutation are almost unlimited. Therefore, it would be very difficult to predict the precise course of future evolution. Besides, where would we start? Even individual humans differ in their genes, and who is to say which genome might ultimately be "better"? JR | |
| From: Joseph | 19/07/00
11:35:27 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
101368 |
| Endless challenges! JR, you may
not have carefully read the many previous posts at this thread. To
summarise; it is an open question whether there is teleology or
predictable course to evolution. Darwin does not close that open question.
He does not address the question. Darwin's theory is basic. Mutate randomly, and survive selectively. There is no preference for different species (or individuals). If it survives, its (more or less) as good as any other genetic make-up. In this scheme, evolution is merely a means of greater complexity over time, and not a source of teleological improvement. It is just a way of creating different, more complex kinds of adaption. Is there room for teleology. Obviously you don't think so, even though it would not be inconsistent with Darwin. It would add a framework which is missing. Whether there is a pyramid is the open question. You are getting mixed up to assume that heirarchical thinking applies to Darwinism. For Darwin there is no such heirarchy. It is not a misconception (common or otherwise) of mine in this case. I am well aware of Darwin's limitations. To impute a heirarchy is an exception or parallel alternative to Darwinism. You have missed the point. Assuming, then, that there may be a heirarchy, it would be a topography over and above the flat all-are-equal-if-they-survive perspective. The problem (now that I have clarified the question for you) is how to justify such a topography. You are part the way there in identifying the obvious element of the objective framework: intelligence. Although you misconstrue its relevance (by relating it, also, to misconceptions about Darwinism rather than as a separate, stand-alone prospect). Identifying intelligence as the distinguishing criteria is not the same as identifying the mutational and selectional bias which would give rise to it in an objective, predictive, sense. But don't let your awe of Darwin's simplicity stand in the way of answering this more difficult question. What are the limits to mutation; is there feedback though the immune system in particlar; is mutation really unlimited or does it in fact occur accross only 20 codons arranging the structure of 20 amino acids as catalysts in a limited chemical factory albeit with great range; does selection work broadly or with great limitation to where you put the head and tail and what they do etc etc. I am being fairly rudimentary here, but you will get my point. There is more to be done! What disappoints me (not that you need worry about it) is that the answers to my posts are so conservative. There is room to try to explain the emergence of intelligence. It may not be as Hoyle or Lamarcke have attempted to do it, but it does not pay to sit back complacently and worship Darwin. I repeat, Darwin does not explain except in the most basic sense: retrospectively, but with the environmental connection intact. You should read someone like Kuhn or Popper on creativity. Science is not just regurgitation; it is about making leaps and drawing in the threads. And so, I see lots of regular science here. And a tendancy to ridicule. Ah, genius that I am, pouring my heart out into the unknown (if only that were true!). Actually, what I have said is as plain as the nose on your face. Intelligence, and the emergence of the human species cries out for explanation other than "stuff happens, it hangs together, and it obviously works (in an environmental context) so that's cool, dude". Unless, of course, you don't put any great value on this stupandous thing that is intelligence (which I doubt). One thing's for sure, I'm learning to type from all of this! | |
| From: Carmel ® | 19/07/00
11:49:21 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
101384 |
| I wrote out a really long,
detailed and (IMHO) impressive response, but I must have forgotten to
submit it. Give me a bit and I will be sure to find it and post it
again... | |
| From: James Richmond (Avatar) | 19/07/00
13:06:21 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
101423 |
| Hi Joseph, You are right - I hadn't read all of the previous posts, and my reply was a bit rushed. However, I stand by most of what I said. As I understand it, "teleology" means "purpose" or "ultimate aim". I think Darwin does address this question, and states that evolution does not have an ultimate aim. Evolution may head in many different directions. Because mutation is essentially random (although I don't want to claim that there may not be exceptions to the general rule), and because the possibilities for mutation are so large, I think it would be very difficult to predict the future course of evolution. Darwin's theory is basic. Mutate randomly, and survive selectively. There is no preference for different species (or individuals). If it survives, its (more or less) as good as any other genetic make-up. In this scheme, evolution is merely a means of greater complexity over time, and not a source of teleological improvement. It is just a way of creating different, more complex kinds of adaption. Evolution does not always lead to greater complexity. It may even place limits on complexity. For example, consider intelligence, which is probably related at least partially to brain size. Humans could have evolved bigger brains, but this would come at the expense of the body needing to provide more resources (food, oxygen etc.) to sustain the brain. At some point, there must be a balance between the expense of maintaining a large brain and the benefits derived from it. Moreover, evolution will select for a "simpler" organism where previous complexity has become an unnecessary burden due to changing environment. Is there room for teleology. Obviously you don't think so, even though it would not be inconsistent with Darwin. It would add a framework which is missing. In science, I don't really see how a teleological argument could be applied to evolution, but perhaps this is possible. Of course, you are free to say that the evolutionary process is guided by God, or something like that, in which case there may be an ultimate aim. For Darwin there is no ... heirarchy. To impute a heirarchy is an exception or parallel alternative to Darwinism. You have missed the point. So I take it you are trying to impute some heirarchy of life forms on top of Darwinian evolution. How do you propose to rank different species? (This is what I was trying to get at in my previous post.) You are part the way there in identifying the obvious element of the objective framework: intelligence. Although you misconstrue its relevance (by relating it, also, to misconceptions about Darwinism rather than as a separate, stand-alone prospect). What I was trying to get at is that I don't consider intelligence to be a particularly objective criterion for establishing a heirarchy. Why is intelligence inherently "better" than some other form of adaptation? What are the limits to mutation; is there feedback though the immune system in particlar; is mutation really unlimited or does it in fact occur accross only 20 codons arranging the structure of 20 amino acids as catalysts in a limited chemical factory albeit with great range; does selection work broadly or with great limitation to where you put the head and tail and what they do etc etc. I am being fairly rudimentary here, but you will get my point. There is more to be done! I agree with you here, though I might mention that the problem of where to put the head and tail is already well explained by basic Darwinism - the placement of head and tail is guided in the broad sense by gravitational and locomotional environmental factors. What disappoints me (not that you need worry about it) is that the answers to my posts are so conservative. There is room to try to explain the emergence of intelligence. It may not be as Hoyle or Lamarcke have attempted to do it, but it does not pay to sit back complacently and worship Darwin. I repeat, Darwin does not explain except in the most basic sense: retrospectively, but with the environmental connection intact. You should read someone like Kuhn or Popper on creativity. Science is not just regurgitation; it is about making leaps and drawing in the threads. I don't dispute that there is room to try to explain intelligence, but I question the need for a new framework to do so. On a more general note, biology is not my field, but I have read about work done to build on Darwin. Obviously, evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin. He is not put on a pedestal as some type of guru. His work is questioned and expanded by people in the field. The fact that the basics of his theory have withstood numerous attacks is a testament to the power and utility of the theory. By the way, I am aware of Kuhn and Popper's vi | |
| From: James Richmond (Avatar) | 19/07/00
13:08:38 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
101427 |
| (continued) By the way, I am aware of Kuhn and Popper's views, and I don't think that I am a mere "science regurgitator". And so, I see lots of regular science here. And a tendancy to ridicule. Ah, genius that I am, pouring my heart out into the unknown (if only that were true!). Actually, what I have said is as plain as the nose on your face. Intelligence, and the emergence of the human species cries out for explanation other than "stuff happens, it hangs together, and it obviously works (in an environmental context) so that's cool, dude". Unless, of course, you don't put any great value on this stupandous thing that is intelligence (which I doubt). As I have already said, I agree that intelligence could use more explanation. I have no problem with "regular science" and see no reason to introduce extraneous concepts where they are not needed. As for ridicule, please point me to anywhere where you feel I have ridiculed somebody. I try very hard not to do this. JR | |
| From: Dusty ® | 19/07/00
14:01:14 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
101464 |
| Joseph, you have offered some
interesting points for arguement, but I'm not sure I understand you
overall viewpoint that well. You compare evolution to a dart board. The bullseye represents the best adapted species, the surrounding zones less well adapted but still surviving species. So the dartboard is the current environment. The only problem with that is that dartboard keeps moving, changing shape. The "best" adapted creature is not a stationary target, or to get to your other point about teleology, some "ultimate goal". Its at best a short term goal based on current environment. If the "purpose" of evolution is to "produce" the best adpated organism, then that purpose is constantly changing. Where does that leave teleology? As for the emergence of intelligence, you might be correct is saying that needs more explanation than its the product of selective pressures. I'd disagree with James in that I think intelligence offers us the ultimate evolutionary advantage, predictive power, which affords adaptability which is pretty much unrivalled in the animal kingdom. We are bright enough to weigh short-term survival efforts (exploiting the earth) against long term survival benefits (conservation) and thus (hopefully)prevent our own extinction. A less intelligent species would continue its exploitation, lacking the predictive abilities to forsee its own downfall. This is only one example. Sure our large brain costs us a bit in metabolic requirements, but it give us the ability to satisfy that requirement. The question is often raised, have humans escaped or superceeded evolution in the traditional sense, and so far the answer from the forum have been, no, evolution continues, even in the modified human environment. But how do you apply traditional evolutionary priciples to a situation where the organism is no longer adapting to the environment, rather the environment adapts to suit the organism. Its a reverse selection pressure. Or perhaps the era of physical attributes as selection characteristics is over, and the era of mental selection criteria is upon us. Those most mentally facile will become the new "fit". Dusty | |
| From: Carmel ® | 19/07/00
15:10:00 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
101504 |
| You seem to
understand molecular biology in asmuch as I understand the jargon. :) a predictable, weighted, outcome is difficult to reconcile with mutation if, indeed, mutation is entirely random It is. entirely random. Certain regions of the genome may be more prone to mutate than others, but the mutation in itself is entirely random. This is due to the intrinsic molecular mechanisms that govern DNA replication. You cannot explain it away. It's a fact. Mutation is random. If you wish, I will explain why this is so, and how it works. note that it has taken billions of years of cumulative (tried and tested layer upon surviving layer) mutation to evolve a human (for example). Aha! The root of all your troubles! The thing that you must try to get your head around is that selection selects against mutation. This is because mutation is usually bad - it results in a non-viable organism. Which is naturally seleceted against. So, therefore, over time, organisms have been selected for on the basis that they DO NOT mutate easily. Which means that evolution is very slow. Which is precisely WHY it has taken so long to evolve a human. Now, consider this. The environment is prone to change rapidly at times. But selection continues to select for organism with low mutation rates, and hence a slow evoltuion. Which means that the environment is changing far more quickly than the organims are (which is one of the reason so many animals are dying out - they cannot evolve quickly enough to keep up with the rapid way in which humans are changing the environment). And remember than mutation is random. Together these things make it almost impossible to predict. SImply because, if by chance your offspring contain a mutation that would make it better for them to live in a cold environment than a hot one, and you live in a hot environment, they aren't going to do as well as their neighbours. BUT if we are suddenly plunged into another ice age, then they will very quickly have an evoltuionary advantage. But it is very difficult to predict environmental changes like that! Just ask steve(primus) about predicting the everyday weather! I hope that helps a bit. I intend to go and find the other posts and reply to them as well, because I suspect that you are confusing convergent evolution with the concept of 'goal', but anyway.... | |
| From: Dusty ® | 19/07/00
15:14:38 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
101506 |
| convergent evolution
Cool, new term (for me that is). Ok Carmel, fill me in here. What convergent evolution? Dusty | |
| From: Paul H. | 19/07/00
15:20:42 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
101512 |
| >>What convergent
evolution? Like, a dolphin and a shark look the same, even though they come from different genetic trees. Because they both are adapted to the same environment. I think. | |
| From: Carmel ® | 19/07/00
17:31:58 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
101576 |
| As promised, part
2 In this scheme, evolution is merely a means of greater complexity Not so. Selection is all about promoting that which is best able to survive. Which is exactly why simple bacteria and viruses do quite nicely, thank-you very much. Their genomes are tiny. For example, HepC has a genome that is only 9kb long, which is small, even for a virus. Humans have a genome in the billions of bases. Yet HCV is very successful at killing humans. Which would tend to indicate that maybe it's more successful. But that's not the conversation we are really having. What I am really trying to say is this: It is not in the organisms best interest to be complex simply for the sake of it. This represents a waste of energy on a scale bordering on the ridiculous. Far better to put those precious resources into things like reproduction. Therefore, selection goes for those organisms that are best able to survive (which, yes, does suggest a degree of complexity) but do it in the most efficient manner. is mutation really unlimited or does it in fact occur accross only 20 codons arranging the structure of 20 amino acids a does Okay, mutation itself is random. It can occur anywhere, anytime. Some places are more susceptible than others, but basically, mutation can happen anywhere, and anything can happen as a result. HOWEVER, a viable mutant is a different thing entirely! The genetic code is divided up in to 64 codons (each codon has 3 bases - 4x4x4=total number of codons), and there are 20 amino acids and 3 stop codons. Which means the 20 aa are coded by 61 codons. Now, Methionine is unique - it has one codon. That leaves 19aa and 60 codons. Which means those 19 aa must be coded by more than one codon. This is what we refer to as degeneracy. It means that for the most part it is possible for mutation to occur in the DNA sequence and the aa coded for will not change. This is what I was refering to earlier when I said that mutation was selected against. In order for evolution to occur, there must be a mutation in the DNA sequence that results in a change in aa. Even then, there are limitations. AAs are devided up into catergories, each with similar characteristics... small and hydrophobic, large and hydrophobic, acids, bases, alcohols, etc. The genetic code is set up so that if (when) DNA mutates, it is statisically more likely to either a) still code for the same aa (called a 'silient' mutation) or b)code for a similar aa (called a 'conservative' substitution). A conservative substitution will hopefully allow for the protein to retain it's original function. Non-conservative substitutions occur when the new aa is not of the same catergory as the original. These may help promote or hinder evolution (they make the protein in active and cause death of the organism, or they may make the protein more efficient and give the organism an 'edge'). Of course, this is just one example of mutation. There are heaps. What I a getting at is mutation is random, but it does have limitations. HOWEVER, that does not mean that you can predict it. Because even though there are limitations, it's still random. Science is not just regurgitation; it is about making leaps and drawing in the threads Yes, but it is also about devising the SIMPLEST theory that will explain ALL the observed facts (not necessarily all of the known interpretations, but all the facts!). And I am yet to be convinced that there is anything better than Darwin. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there is no room for improvement, because there always is. But you have to be able to find a SIMPLER way to explain ALL the facts. And I don't think that a theory of 'predictive' evoltuion can fulfill that criteria. and states that evolution does not have an ultimate aim. I have said it before and I will say it again, undoubtedly. Evolution is a phenomena. It has neither aim nor ambition. Nature has an aim. The aim is to survive - to be the most successful at doing it! Selection is the tool Nature uses and Evolution is the effect we see. And hence has no aim. What is convergent evolution? While I am on a roll... Convergent evolution is when two evolutionarily distinct organisms develop very similar features. Paul's example of dolphins and shark's is good. I've used fish and shark's before. Another good example are cats and dogs. Is suspect that Joseph is basing his ideas on this phenomena. Which is all very well and good... it almost makes sense. EXCEPT, you need to be able to predict which two organisms are going to do it! And you cannot use living in the same environment as a clue, because of two reasons. Firstly convergent evolution is obvious in animals that do not live in the same environment (similar ye | |
| From: Carmel ® | 19/07/00
17:35:16 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
101577 |
| ...Firstly convergent evolution
is obvious in animals that do not live in the same environment (similar
yes, but not the same). Secondly because there are examples of animals
that live in the same environment that DO NOT evolve similar
features! | |
| From: Joseph | 20/07/00
12:00:53 |
| Subject: re: Human Arrogance?????? | post id:
101972 |
| Blimey. Just a few comments
because I am probably repeating myself. JR, I am proposing the creation of
a set of criteria other than Darwinian adaption to give credence to
teleology (and the emergence of human intelligence in particular). The
emergent intelligence would have to be adaptive ( in the sense that it
would need to fit the environment), but, in the Darwinian sense,
intelligence would not be better than any other adaption. The unknown
criteria would weight the environment inevitably (predictably) in favor of
humans. Darwin does not do this in his understanding of "environment"
(and, therefore, adaption to it). Darwin's environment is broad and changeable. What I propose is the narrowing and averaging of environmental factors. Destructive contingencies will always arise, as they do in the formation of solar systems, for example. However, we can be confident, in retrospect, that they won't always arise (because we are here!). Weighting would justify the use of the word destructive as not being conducive to the emergence of intelligence (ie a ruddy great asteroid 500,000 years ago would have been inconvenient). How then should we analyse the environment on our planet. Thermodynamics and gravitation ( as you note fron the head and tail) would be a good start. What configurations of catalysed chemicals maximise the therodynamic and gravitational economies on the surface of our planet. An answer to that question may produce some answers. Are evolved creature more fit in the strict literal sense that they are not just more able to cope with hot, cold, wet or dry (to be basic about it) but are actually constructed from the chemicals that appear in the environment in the configurations in which they are found in the environment: and, therefore, literally, "are" the environment. Hmmm, now we are getting warm. I won't continue with that line of argument, but you can probably see where I am leading. We need to look first at the environment. Analyse it for its thermodynamic, gravitational and chemical properties, and then see if we can a priori construct a path of evolution for creatures. Carmel, your limitless random mutation of codons coding for the 20 amino acids (whose importance in the grand scheme I presumably can't get my head around ) kick in to catalyse chemical reactions in this thermo-grav-chem environment. It is a blessing (not in the spiritual sense) that DNA can indeed be voracious as a catalyst and almost randon in variation. I say almost, because we need to keep an open mind to feedback. Ted Steele is no bunny, and it is obvious (despite Crick's central dogma: DNA to RNA and not vica versa) that we have not controlled the creation of mutations in the lab, and that point mutations occur in the context of cell division, dependent as it is on the availability of nucleotides). You will be aware, Carmel, that the nucleotide replication error which interrupts the fidelity of DNA replication is contingent on those mutational nucleotide additions (or variations) being sourced from the environment around the cell. I am no microbiologist, but I wouldn't close the book on reverse transcription, immune system feedback, and the availability of sourced chemicals (ie the environment external to the cell) being relevant to eroding Crick's central dogma. And, the fossil record is a bad indicator of the course of mutation in any event. Why the punctuation? Why gaps? If mutations are more often deleterious than beneficial, where's the fossil evidence. It could be that the mutant individual dies out too soon to create any fossil abundance. Perhaps. Or, perhaps, even with the benefit of billions of years to produce the seemingly random mutations that are eventually selected (layer of success upon layer) it is necessary to get a little kick along by the context in which the cell mutates (the chemical contingencies of the environment). Thus both mutation and selection become more narrowly or closely linked to the environment than allowed by Darwin's broad theory. We are dealing here with billions. Billions of years. A mutation rate of one in a billion nucleotides per replication. It doesn't take much of an opening to slightly erode the central dogma. I wouldn't go so far as to propose wholesale bunched or punctuated mutations in reasonable harmony with environmental conditions, but I wouldn't rule them out. And so, we have a door ajar (despite your confidence otherwise, Carmel); and alternativre emphasis from Darwin towards an objective and prospective analysis of the environment rather than a retrospective analysis of the organism which has survived in the context of the environment. And, to answer the bulls-eye question from Dave?, we have a degree of averaging accross conditions (thermo-grav-chem) on the surface of the planet to construct our a priori preferred creature (allowing for statistical eventualities). QED for now. It remains an open question (and I thank you for | |