Kuznetzova wrote:
The invention of electrical technology in the 20th century pushed technological progress into overdrive. Within the time of a single lifespan, rapid invention and deployment creates artifacts that are unrecognizable to older generations.
There are two distinct issues which you need to distinguish.
Somatic/organic evolution of Species which is purely mechanical and unintentional; and Cultural Evolution by humans which is extra-somatic, and is guided by conscious need and design.
Kuznetzova wrote:We can pause and reflect on the above essay. Some recent futurist writers have suggested that evolution is speeding up in an exponential manner. However, proposing a "speed up" implies that there must be some direction that the process is going. Is evolution going in a direction? If evolution is getting faster, exactly what process is "going faster" here on earth?
One may be seduced into thinking that life on earth is becoming more complex, tending towards higher complexity, or "complexifying" as it were. Trained, stuffy academics in biology often bluntly deny any increase in complexity as a direction to evolution. They usually follow up with a defense that says there is no reasonable or objective metric for determining whether a human being is more complex than a stegosaurus. The number of cell types in the human body is not very large, and the size of our genome is not particularly large either. (Organisms with huge genomes include the marbled lungfish, and a flowering weed that grows in Japan. "Paris japonica")
The stodgy academics further deny that any modern ecosystem is more complex than any given ecosystem during the Devonian geological period. Catch these academics on a day in which they are feeling snippy and ungracious, and they will outright deny any direction to evolution at all. They may describe it as a random wandering through a random space of random mutations. But such a position is, in my opinion, pointedly nihilistic.
A better way to frame the question of a direction to evolution, is to consider life forming on many different planets in the galaxy, and then (from the vantage of an astrobiologist) talk instead of the likelihood that life on those distant planets may become intelligent, and later invent technology.
The stodgy academics, whom you have failed to mention by name, always hasten to remind us that whilst mutation might be random, the driving force behind evolution - natural selection is anything but random. Live continues to choose any and all individual life-forms that survive to make viable progeny. That's the whole point. If you miss that then you misunderstand evolution.
A system that produces variation, will tend to produce increasing variation. The idea you have that evolution is either directed or increasing is purely anthropomorphic.
reasonvemotion wrote:Dating the origin of life to a time of bilions of years ago still doesnt help explain how lfe could start from nonliving matter. So how can scientists assert that life started by a random chance formation of a living organism from nonliving chemicals? Dr John Ashton, Professor of Biomedical Sciences of Victoria University states, "despite more than 50 years research, scientists still do not have a workable viable explanation of how life could start.
We are still near the bottom of the evoluntionary tree - only up to the worms. Not only have scientists not observed any of this new genetic information being generated, but on the basis of probability there is simply not enough time in the supposed four billion years of evolution for all the genetic information required in the genomes of all the millions of different species of bacteria, fungi, plants and animals to evolve as a result of random mutations. If the evolution of simple cell is statistically impossible, the evolution of higher organisms is even more impossible. As University of Rochester biology professor Allen Orr points out "The overwhelming majoriy of random mutations are harmful, that is, they reduce fitness, only a tiny minority are beneficial".
There are plenty of identifiable substances that bridge the gap between living and non living matter.
We should not forget that the all living organism creates one coordinated subject, super-organism... Its aim seems to be generating of some “blossom”, something as (better) mankind that is able to spread, to save, to settle our life further into galaxy… BTW: nice face, Kuznetzova, has us to recall some noble, unselfish mission :)
Cerveny wrote:We should not forget that the all living organism creates one coordinated subject, super-organism... Its aim seems to be generating of some “blossom”, something as (better) mankind that is able to spread, to save, to settle our life further into galaxy… BTW: nice face, Kuznetzova, has us to recall some noble, unselfish mission
Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.
Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.
The apparent Big Bang emergence of characteristics which seem to exhibit irreducible complexity is a by-product of the fossil record which, in most cases can only represent a tiny minority of species and transitional forms.
The eye does, however, have many precursors, despite this false objection.
Mike Strand wrote: Genetic drift is a fourth cause -- random change in the frequency of the different forms of a gene (alleles), which affects a small population more powerfully than it does a large one.
Genetic drift means the proportion of the gene in the population is dis-correlated with fitness. It is easy to be seduced into thinking that the proportion of traits in a population is always answered by saying "well this trait must effect fitness". However, it may be the case that a trait is expressed in a population merely due to the inflation of a random sampling error in a smaller population -- a population that went on to increase its numbers significantly.
My favorite example is the black-and-white racing stripes on the backs of chipmunks. Perhaps the stripe-less chipmunks all drowned in a sudden flood. There was never any "struggle for existence" between the striped and stripe-less chipmunk populations.
jinx wrote: In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.
These Creationist/Intelligent Design arguments are from the 19th century. Go ahead and attack gradualism like some sort of fundie from 1874. No skin off my back.
You and I live in the year 2012. Scientists have actually mathematicized the large-scale dynamics of complex systems, including the dynamics of ecosystems. Our models show that unexpected, sudden dramatic changes characterize the dynamics of ecosystems through geological time -- exactly as is seen in the fossil record. Do you own a computer, jinx? (Sure you do, because you are posting on this forum.) Use your fancy computer and watch the process in real time.
jinx wrote:People dont seem to realize, there is no mechanism for going from simple (say a single prokaroyte)---->complex (say a brachiosaurus).
Start a thread on this, and we will see if we can rip the proposition to shreds.
But before you do that -- I would ask the following question. From my perspective any proposition of the form "There is no X for doing Y" is an existence claim. Existence claims usually need a single counter-example to knock down. Would an example of a system that exhibits a tiny increase in complexity count as a counter-example to your thesis? I guess I'm wondering if you would accept a boot-strapping argument as a counter-example. ((If SystemA exhibits complexity increase from 2 to 3, do you believe that therefore, we can have a SystemB whose complexity increase from 3 to 4, How about from 4 to 5, and so on...?))
Kuznetzova I have no clue what you are on about. I am taking SCIENCE (biology genetics biochemistry) there is NO genetic mechanism for adding bulk amounts of NEW genetic information. If you have a literature cite it. I suggest everyone read Darwins 'Origin of faeces i mean species' so as ability can be had to analyze the myth.
jinx wrote:Kuznetzova I have no clue what you are on about. I am taking SCIENCE (biology genetics biochemistry) there is NO genetic mechanism for adding bulk amounts of NEW genetic information. If you have a literature cite it. I suggest everyone read Darwins 'Origin of faeces i mean species' so as ability can be had to analyze the myth.
The Origin of Species is the most amazing and earth shattering book of the 19thC and few have surpassed its impact.
But why add Darwin to this thread. He didn't mention anything about genes, or DNA.
Bacteria and other micro-organisms are very promiscuous with their DNA and swap it between species on a daily basis.
And there are plenty of examples where the number of genes and the amount of DNA increases and decreases generation by generation in fruit flies.
