Darwin re-visited

[REASON]

Would this be Natural Cloning, or does the fact that it was in vitro make it Man-Made?

[Michaelangelica]

Would this be Natural Cloning, or does the fact that it was in vitro make it Man-Made?

 

That's a bloody hard question.

How about another

Is it natural selection?

[REASON]

That's a bloody hard question.

How about another

Is it natural selection?

 

I think it could be argued philosophically that since human beings are natural, any impact we have on life could still be considered Natural Selection from a large scale point of view. The system of life does not presume to make such a distinction.

 

If all human beings were to quickly become exinct due to some rapidly spreading disease, for instance, our affect on the development of life on this planet would seem like a ripple in time.

[Michaelangelica]

I think it could be argued philosophically that since human beings are natural, any impact we have on life could still be considered Natural Selection from a large scale point of view..

Yes that is the argument.

I don't buy it.

I think it is sophistry.

[REASON]

Yes that is the argument.

I don't buy it.

I think it is sophistry.

 

Well, generally speaking, I do to. That argument can be used as an excuse to fiddle in ways that may prove to be not so beneficial. While your article suggests the rarity of identical triplets, I've been amazed by how often in vitro fertilisation is able to produce these litters of children, up to six and seven. That can hardly be construed as natural can it?

 

I guess ultimately, it becomes a matter of perspective relative to time when it comes to evaluating it on an evolutionary scale.

[Michaelangelica]

I guess ultimately, it becomes a matter of perspective relative to time when it comes to evaluating it on an evolutionary scale.

Interesting point.

 

First 'Rule' Of Evolution Suggests That Life Is Destined To Become More Complex

 

ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2008) — Researchers have found evidence which suggests that evolution drives animals to become increasingly more complex.

 

Looking back through the last 550 million years of the fossil catalogue to the present day, the team investigated the different evolutionary branches of the crustacean family tree.

 

They were seeking examples along the tree where animals evolved that were simpler than their ancestors.

 

Instead they found organisms with increasingly more complex structures and features, suggesting that there is some mechanism driving change in this direction.

. . .

“Sooner or later, however, you reach a level of complexity where it’s possible to go backwards and become simpler again.

 

 

“What’s astonishing is that hardly any crustaceans have taken this backwards route. Instead, almost all branches have evolved in the same direction, becoming more complex in parallel.

First 'Rule' Of Evolution Suggests That Life Is Destined To Become More Complex

So are humans going 'backwards' and lobsters going 'forward'

[Thunderbird]

 

If all human beings were to quickly become exinct due to some rapidly spreading disease, for instance, our affect on the development of life on this planet would seem like a ripple in time.

 

More like the butterfly effect, small changes, such as extiction caused by man will effect profoundly the life on earth. It has already.

[REASON]

More like the butterfly effect, small changes, such as extiction caused by man will effect profoundly the life on earth. It has already.

 

I smiled when I saw that you had replied to this thread, but I expected that you would have commented on Michael's attached article above that I believe supports your aguments regarding complexity in evolution.

 

My point was not to suggest that humans don't have a real impact on the life on this planet, but rather to suggest that if our impact were rapidly discontinued, over a long enough period of time, the affect we had would become indistinguishable from other natural life altering effects.

[freeztar]

First 'Rule' Of Evolution Suggests That Life Is Destined To Become More Complex

So are humans going 'backwards' and lobsters going 'forward'

 

I'd just like to point out a few things about this research.

First, only crustaceans were studied. Secondly, the researchers concede that simplification was seen as well amongst the crustaceans. In fact, the last paragraph of that article is quite telling.

 

“Our results apply to a group of animals with bodies made of repeated units. We must not forget that bacteria – very simple organisms – are among the most successful living things. Therefore, the trend towards complexity is compelling but does not describe the history of all life.”

 

So while it is interesting research, I find the title misleading as this phenomena is obviously not a hard rule of evolution.

[Thunderbird]

I smiled when I saw that you had replied to this thread, but I expected that you would have commented on Michael's attached article above that I believe supports your aguments regarding complexity in evolution.

 

 

Part of it, I think he goes a bit to far, but the following makes no sense to me. It sounds like he is about to discover that crustaceans where very complex at the their appearance, which I thought was going to stir my interest, then he goes off to say that it moves in the direction of complexity. I really don't think this is all that true, in this case anyway, for this type of fauna. Especially when broadening the view point to the scale of they phyla. The arthropods were very complex 500 million years ago, and also there was more phyla level diversity starting off. I believe complexity dropped after the Cambrian, and widened out again on the number of species.

 

Its not a place where I would want to position myself to speak to increased complexity. I would rather be using the Chordates for that augment.

[Pyrotex]

If you were to look at ALL life on Earth, it may be that you would find that [i make up numbers here]:

 

90% of life forms stayed simple (bacteria)

9% of life forms became slightly more complex (algae)

0.9% of life forms became significantly MC (protozoa)

0.09% OLFB seriously MC ...

 

etc, etc, etc...

 

What we have here is a distribution, perhaps inverse geometric or lognormal, that expresses the probability over "deep time" that a given life form in a given series of environments, with a given set of predators, blah, blah, blah,... will survive by adapting more complexity rather than by "dodging evolutionary bullets" and changing form at the same level of complexity.

 

The vast majority (bacteria, et al) simply dance in place, and survive quite well.

[Thunderbird]

If you were to look at ALL life on Earth, it may be that you would find that [i make up numbers here]:

 

90% of life forms stayed simple (bacteria)

9% of life forms became slightly more complex (algae)

0.9% of life forms became significantly MC (protozoa)

0.09% OLFB seriously MC ...

 

etc, etc, etc...

 

What we have here is a distribution, perhaps inverse geometric or lognormal, that expresses the probability over "deep time" that a given life form in a given series of environments, with a given set of predators, blah, blah, blah,... will survive by adapting more complexity rather than by "dodging evolutionary bullets" and changing form at the same level of complexity.

 

The vast majority (bacteria, et al) simply dance in place, and survive quite well.

 

 

This is looking at parts of a system and not considering the whole. The biomass of the earth is layered in initial simple systems that give rise and supports more complex systems. It not about dividing the ratio of the biomass its about understanding that one level gives rise and supports to the next. The single cell microbial community is the foundation of the multi-celled community. This can be seen as an environment hierarchal structures as well as hierarchal morphological structure. Our bodies represent a community of cellular relationships that are more complex than the sum of its former autonomous parts.

 

Let me make this clear as possible... the single autonomous cells total complexity is not as complex as the complexity of a man’ or any other complex animal. This is a major leap of complexity.

 

Its like your saying , once you have a chicken, you shouldn't need any more eggs. We did not replace cells we are made out of them.

 

Maxson J. McDowell

 

Genes and self-organization

Several lines of evidence from biology indicate that images are not inherited in the form of pre- determined connections between cortical neurons (Elman et al. 1998, pp. 25-6, 275-82).

One line of evidence concerns the machinery of inheritance. I have only about 32,000 different genes (Baltimore 20001) while a bacterium has 3 to 5,000. But my anatomy is astronomically more complex than that of a bacterium. It has been estimated that the human body contains about 5x1025 bits of information in the arrangement of its molecules while the human genome contains less than 109 bits of information (Calow 1976, pp. 101-3). Again the disparity is of astronomical proportions. These numbers prove that my genes must be used economically. They must code for processes which enable my structure to evolve, but they are too few to form a 'blueprint', or image, of my final structure. My body's structure is emergent, that is, my body self-organizes with minimal guidance from the genes.

Self-organization is directed in part by the inherent properties of the component parts (what fits with what). It is also directed in part by information from the environment. Recent experiments on the cerebral cortex demonstrate the latter point. The cortex is highly plastic: individual neurons connect to each other not in predetermined patterns (as a theory of inherited images would suggest) but under the direction of sensory input. In new-born ferrets, for example, visual input was surgically redirected to the auditory cortex. As these ferrets matured the auditory cortex organized itself successfully for vision! (Sharma et al., 2000).

Sensory input is translated into neuronal connections in part by the anatomical constraints of the brain. These constraints operate at several levels. At the level of gross anatomy, only the visual area of the cortex receives visual input. At the level of tissue, neurons are arranged in regular patterns: cortical neurons, for example, are arranged in six distinct layers. At the level of cells, the anatomy and physiology of the neuron itself also provide constraints which help to determine connections (Elman et al., 1998, pp. 27-30).

While my genes must influence the anatomy of my brain, they are too few to define the detailed wiring between neurons. It follows that they are certainly too few to define the archetypal images which are part of the anatomy of my personality.

Not until the year 2000, when the sequence of the human genome was completed, was it known that a human has only about *32, 000 genes. Estimates had been significantly higher. This small number focuses attention on complexity: how does human complexity arise from so few genes? Part of the answer must lie in the archetypes. Because of its familiarity with the archetypes, analytical psychology has a contribution to make here.

 

*More up to date estimates put the # of genes 25,000

[Pyrotex]

This is looking at parts of a system and not considering the whole.... the single autonomous cells total complexity is not as complex as the complexity of a man’ or any other complex animal. ...

:QuestionM:confused:

You quoted me, then gave a response that appears to have nothing to do with what I said. WTF?

[Thunderbird]

If you were to look at ALL life on Earth, it may be that you would find that [i make up numbers here]:

 

90% of life forms stayed simple (bacteria)

9% of life forms became slightly more complex (algae)

0.9% of life forms became significantly MC (protozoa)

0.09% OLFB seriously MC ...

 

etc, etc, etc...

 

What we have here is a distribution, perhaps inverse geometric or lognormal, that expresses the probability over "deep time" that a given life form in a given series of environments, with a given set of predators, blah, blah, blah,... will survive by adapting more complexity rather than by "dodging evolutionary bullets" and changing form at the same level of complexity.

 

The vast majority (bacteria, et al) simply dance in place, and survive quite well.

Oh yea now that I'v read it again it's not a counter point to complexity its well its... ahhh your saying ahhh... WTF are you saying.:shrug:

[REASON]

Oh yea now that I'v read it again it's not a counter point to complexity its well its... ahhh your saying ahhh... WTF are you saying.:shrug:

 

What I gather Pyro is saying is that there is a far greater probability that complexity will not develop in life forms, than will.

[Thunderbird]

What I gather Pyro is saying is that there is a far greater probability that complexity will not develop in life forms, than will.

 

Well if that’s true my post is apropos.:shrug:

[Michaelangelica]

Certainly it seems that life forms like bacteria are the most successful collinators of this planet.

They are being found everywhere- 3 miles down in the earth, at impossible depths in the sea , heaps in the soil and now heaps even in sea-water and salt mines.

 

But say those guys got together and formed a symbiotic club and called it a 'bluebottle' or 'man'?

 

We are more bacteria than anything else. So who are we working for?