Challenge to Darwinian natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution

[MD]

Self-organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Self Organization:

"Self-organization is a process where some form of global order or coordination arises out of the local interactions between the components of an initially disordered system. This process is spontaneous: it is not directed or controlled by any agent or subsystem inside or outside of the system. It is often triggered by random fluctuations that are amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized or distributed over all the components of the system. As such it is typically very robust and able to survive and self-repair substantial damage or perturbations."


http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~desmith/PDF_pubs/Hoelzer.pdf
Biology and Philosophy, Volume 22, Number 4 - SpringerLink

And now for the religious slant:

Stuart Kauffman
God enough - Salon.com

"It sounds like your God is equivalent to nature.
I’m saying God is the sacredness of nature. And you can go a step beyond that. You can say that God is nature. That’s the God of Spinoza. That’s the God that Einstein believed in. But their view of the universe was deterministic. The new view is that evolution of the universe is partially lawless and ceaselessly creative. We are the children of that creativity. One either does or does not take the step of saying God is the creativity of the universe. I do. Or you say there is divinity in the creativity in the universe."

"Well, Dawkins does not want to bridge that gap. He wants to convince those religious believers that they’re wrong.
Absolutely. But I think Richard is wrong. Not that there’s a supernatural god. I think that there’s something else. I think the creativity in nature is so stunning and so overwhelming that it’s God enough for me, and I think it’s God enough for many of us if we think about it."

 

[Sunstone]

Sounds like woo, doesn't it?

 

[MD]

Sounds like woo, doesn't it?

Did you even read any of the articles I posted?

 

[painted wolf]

I don't see how this challenges evolution...

It does help inform how the first self replicating molecules would form and so on, but it doesn't remove the actions of inheritance and selection.
the influence of positive (and negative) feedback loops are part of modern evolutionary theory and especially in ecology and biochemistry.

wa:do

 

[Steve Love]

I think the creativity in nature is so stunning and so overwhelming that it’s God enough for me, and I think it’s God enough for many of us if we think about it."

Why attribute that to a deity. Why not attribute it to the wide and varied results that evolution can produce over billions of years. Nature is wonderful and overwhelming. You do not need to envoke a creator for this to be so.

 

[MD]

I don't see how this challenges evolution...

It does help inform how the first self replicating molecules would form and so on, but it doesn't remove the actions of inheritance and selection.
the influence of positive (and negative) feedback loops are part of modern evolutionary theory and especially in ecology and biochemistry.

wa:do

I think it challenges the idea that all complex biological processes are only the product of random mutations which adapt to their environment (chance) rather than a natural law of self organization within any complex system (natural design)

 

[MD]

Why attribute that to a deity. Why not attribute it to the wide and varied results that evolution can produce over billions of years. Nature is wonderful and overwhelming. You do not need to envoke a creator for this to be so.

Self organization is a natural law that spontaneously arises in complex system, it's nature's intelligent design. To some that implies a creative force in the universe.

 

[Old Scratch]

I don't see how this challenges evolution...
It does help inform how the first self replicating molecules would form and so on, but it doesn't remove the actions of inheritance and selection.
the influence of positive (and negative) feedback loops are part of modern evolutionary theory and especially in ecology and biochemistry.
wa:do

A miserable human forum with lupine posts I see?
An interesting & wicked change from the usual ovine bleating this is!
So many would this elegant mechanism of life deny, while right before their eyes it unfolds.
To wolves these low mortals more should listen!

 

[Reptillian]

I had to split this post in two because it was too long...

Post 1

Evolution is a kind of self organization. Here is something I posted in an artificial intelligence thread that applies here...modified for relevance:

Imagine a long row of squares on a piece of paper with each square either being filled in, or left blank. Below that row, I draw another identical row of squares, all initially blank. Now I either fill in each square in the new row, or leave it blank; depending upon whether the square directly above it is filled in, and whether the two squares touching that square are filled in or blank.

For example if all three squares above the square of interest are filled in, you might leave the new one blank...if the one directly above the square of interest is blank but the ones on the left and right are filled in, you might decide to fill it in. There are 8 different configurations for the three squares (called cells) above the cell of interest. and you leave the new cell blank or fill it in for each configuration. So there are 2 choices for each of the 8 configurations, giving a total of 256 different possible sets of rules for filling in the new row. So you can number them

These are some examples of rules.

Now once your new row is complete, you repeat the process and draw another new row beneath that and use your chosen rule to complete that row...and continue the process. In the end you get a picture that looks like this:

 

[Reptillian]

Post 2:

Not all rules produce such interesting patterns...over a lot of updates you can get some really complex pictures with certain rules

Complexity falls out on it's own. Here you see an example of a cellular automata pattern on a seashell.

The pigment producing cells produce pigment as the shell grows depending upon what the neighbor cells are doing. No intelligence is required to produce this pattern, the complexity just falls out from simple things interacting simply.

It's likely that all the laws of nature are of this form...there likely aren't overarching laws (like Newton's laws of motion, or the Schrodinger equation) written into the universe, the behaviors attributed to them are likely byproducts of simple things interacting simply, but producing self organizing complexity.

Saying that complexity and self organization is intelligently designed is like saying that the seashell above was intentionally painted by the creature living inside it.

 

[MD]

Post 2:
The pigment producing cells produce pigment as the shell grows depending upon what the neighbor cells are doing. No intelligence is required to produce this pattern, the complexity just falls out from simple things interacting simply.

It's likely that all the laws of nature are of this form...there likely aren't overarching laws (like Newton's laws of motion, or the Schrodinger equation) written into the universe, the behaviors attributed to them are likely byproducts of simple things interacting simply, but producing self organizing complexity.

Saying that complexity and self organization is intelligently designed is like saying that the seashell above was intentionally painted by the creature living inside it.

I said it was nature's version of intelligent design. The example you gave was interesting but the simple patterns through which you have complexity can be either derived through chance (natural selection) or self organization (natural law). Self organization doesn't happen only in biological systems, it occurs in everything from molecules to societies. Self organization is also spontaneous, which means that the system does not need to go through its own sort of natural selection before it becomes cohesive. The organizing principles are intrinsic to the system itself and I think is a fundamental law of the universe.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Self-organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Self Organization:

"Self-organization is a process where some form of global order or coordination arises out of the local interactions between the components of an initially disordered system. This process is spontaneous: it is not directed or controlled by any agent or subsystem inside or outside of the system. It is often triggered by random fluctuations that are amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized or distributed over all the components of the system. As such it is typically very robust and able to survive and self-repair substantial damage or perturbations."


http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~desmith/PDF_pubs/Hoelzer.pdf
Biology and Philosophy, Volume 22, Number 4 - SpringerLink

And now for the religious slant:

Stuart Kauffman
God enough - Salon.com

"It sounds like your God is equivalent to nature.
I’m saying God is the sacredness of nature. And you can go a step beyond that. You can say that God is nature. That’s the God of Spinoza. That’s the God that Einstein believed in. But their view of the universe was deterministic. The new view is that evolution of the universe is partially lawless and ceaselessly creative. We are the children of that creativity. One either does or does not take the step of saying God is the creativity of the universe. I do. Or you say there is divinity in the creativity in the universe."

"Well, Dawkins does not want to bridge that gap. He wants to convince those religious believers that they’re wrong.
Absolutely. But I think Richard is wrong. Not that there’s a supernatural god. I think that there’s something else. I think the creativity in nature is so stunning and so overwhelming that it’s God enough for me, and I think it’s God enough for many of us if we think about it."

To me it seems Dawkins is satisfied enough seeing and knowing stunning things occurr in creation, and not knowing how or why it was created.

 

[painted wolf]

I think it challenges the idea that all complex biological processes are only the product of mutations which adapt to their environment (chance) rather than a natural law of self organization within any complex system (natural design)

But mutations are the result of the faulty nature of the "self organization" of molecules.
The two parts work in harmony not in an adversarial way.

wa:do

 

[MD]

But mutations are the result of the faulty nature of the "self organization" of molecules.
The two parts work in harmony not in an adversarial way.

wa:do

Mutations are not the result of the faulty nature of the self organization, they are random changes which occur within the system. For example if you have a frameshift mutation, that's something otuside the system which has inserted a bp into the system. They are random occurences which change the system, and the strength with which the system maintains itself decides whether or not it can continue to the next 'generation'. Of course natural selection also plays a part, but I think the fidelity of the system itself has to be maintained for it to pass the tests of natural selection.

Self organization is like a natural law on it's own, systems automatically organize themselves into complex units who adapt to the random occurences. Imo it is the primary mechanism of evolution, rather than natural selection.

They are definitely complementary, but I think self organization is much more crucial than natural selection in evolution. Maybe I'm just saying all this because I despise Dawkins .

 

[Skwim]

Stuart Kauffman
God enough - Salon.com
" I think the creativity in nature is so stunning and so overwhelming that it’s God enough for me, and I think it’s God enough for many of us if we think about it."

Argument from awe is hardly convincing.

 

[MD]

Argument from awe is hardly convincing.

LOL did you bother to read all the evidence I have posted from the articles and wikipeida ??

My guess would be no :no:

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think it challenges the idea that all complex biological processes are only the product of random mutations which adapt to their environment (chance) rather than a natural law of self organization within any complex system (natural design)

I don't think that all structures that we perceive to be 'complex' necessitate design. It may be intuitive to think so, but I don't believe that it has to be the case all the time.

As an example of that, imagine the placement of pebbles on a beach. For the sake of argument, let's pick an arbitrary number of pebbles to work with: 124,000.

If the beach had enough space for exactly 124,000 pebbles and the sea waves moved them so that each pebble ended up in a certain location, the probability that a single pebble end up in its given place is 1/124,000. At first glance, this may seem like a very improbable event that was influenced by an outside force(s) (or designed, in the case of the scenario in the OP), but the sea waves' motion, along with other factors that might have led to such placement of pebbles, is random. The sea isn't sapient or even sentient, so such placement is entirely unplanned.

So while the probability that each pebble lay in its specific location is 1/124,000, the probability that it will lay somewhere on the beach once it is on solid ground is 1. It will certainly end up at a point there if it reaches the shore, which means that an event perceived to be very unlikely (e.g. with a 1/124,000 chance of occurring) is certain to happen if enough coincidences take place — such as the pebbles merely reaching the shore.

I believe it is possible to think of certain occurrences in the universe the same way: it might seem counter-intuitive for them to happen spontaneously or in a random manner, but a totality of said improbable events is certain to happen, much like the placement of pebbles on the beach as in the example above.

And as an aside, there are hundreds of thousands or even millions of websites on the Internet, and hundreds of millions of Internet users, so it would seem that it is very unlikely for a person like me to come across you online, but we wouldn't be speaking weren't it for that (very) improbable event's occurrence.

 

[otokage007]

I think it challenges the idea that all complex biological processes are only the product of random mutations which adapt to their environment (chance) rather than a natural law of self organization within any complex system (natural design)

The mutation process is random, the process that selects mutations it's not random. Natural selection it's not a random process and has nothing to do with chance.

I also don't see why your post challenges darwinian evolution!

Natural selection "seems intelligent" because it produces the effect of "animals being granted with tools that help them survive". This doesn't mean nature is intelligent or sentient, it only means that observation of nature has fooled you into believing that.

 

[MD]

I don't think that all structures that we perceive to be 'complex' necessitate design. It may be intuitive to think so, but I don't believe that it has to be the case all the time.

As an example of that, imagine the placement of pebbles on a beach. For the sake of argument, let's pick an arbitrary number of pebbles to work with: 124,000.

If the beach had enough space for exactly 124,000 pebbles and the sea waves moved them so that each pebble ended up in a certain location, the probability that a single pebble end up in its given place is 1/124,000. At first glance, this may seem like a very improbable event that was influenced by an outside force(s) (or designed, in the case of the scenario in the OP), but the sea waves' motion, along with other factors that might have led to such placement of pebbles, is random. The sea isn't sapient or even sentient, so such placement is entirely unplanned.

So while the probability that each pebble lay in its specific location is 1/124,000, the probability that it will lay somewhere on the beach once it is on solid ground is 1. It will certainly end up at a point there if it reaches the shore, which means that an event perceived to be very unlikely (e.g. with a 1/124,000 chance of occurring) is certain to happen if enough coincidences take place — such as the pebbles merely reaching the shore.

I believe it is possible to think of certain occurrences in the universe the same way: it might seem counter-intuitive for them to happen spontaneously or in a random manner, but a totality of said improbable events is certain to happen, much like the placement of pebbles on the beach as in the example above.

And as an aside, there are hundreds of thousands or even millions of websites on the Internet, and hundreds of millions of Internet users, so it would seem that it is very unlikely for a person like me to come across you online, but we wouldn't be speaking weren't it for that (very) improbable event's occurrence.

That's not my argument, my argument is that systems, whether they be molecular or cellular or societal automatically develop an organization spontaneously. The sea itself has a degree of self organization to it and if enough pebbles were arranged in a certain configuration and they were interacting with each other , an ordered system would arise automatically without outside intereference.

This has experimental and evidential support behind it. If a system is 'created' spontaneously, then it suggests that the spontaneous occurence of order out of disorder is intrinsic to the universe itself.

I'm not denying natural selection, but while natural selection states that a complex system arises through the random changes within a system itself which is selected by the environment over generations, self organization states that order is intrinsic to a system in a certain configuration. Self organization states that systems obtaining order is a law of the universe, not the product of selection.

 

[MD]

The mutation process is random, the process that selects mutations it's not random. Natural selection it's not a random process and has nothing to do with chance.

I also don't see why your post challenges darwinian evolution!

Natural selection "seems intelligent" because it produces the effect of "animals being granted with tools that help them survive". This doesn't mean nature is intelligent or sentient, it only means that observation of nature has fooled you into believing that.

Self organization states that a system is intrinsically geared for order.

Natural selection states that a system is selected for order.

And natural selection is mostly based on chance, the mutation is random and the environmental changes are random.