Challenge to Darwinian natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution

[painted wolf]

Mutations are not the result of the faulty nature of the self organization, they are random changes which occur within the system.

Yes, and that's because of the nature of self organization inherent in DNA.

For example if you have a frameshift mutation, that's something otuside the system which has inserted a bp into the system.

sometimes... frame shifts can also be caused by glitches in the replication process. Thus it's fully within 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.

again, it's part of how DNA is organized and the chemistry behind it.

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.

Self organization only really works at the molecular and cellular level and such.

Natural selection isn't random.

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 .

I'm no fan of Dawkins myself... don't let dislike of one man prejudice you against scientific facts.

wa:do

 

[MD]

Yes, and that's because of the nature of self organization inherent in DNA.

sometimes... frame shifts can also be caused by glitches in the replication process. Thus it's fully within the system.

In some instances it's fully within the system, in some instances it's outside the system. It still implies that the self organized system is required first for such occurences to actually take place. You can have self organization without natural selection, but you can't have natural selection without a self organizing system.

Self organization only really works at the molecular and cellular level and such.

Evolution is the accumulation of changes over millions of years at the molecular level ie bp changes.

Natural selection isn't random.

Mutations are random. Darwinian natural selection is how well the species adapts to the environment based only on random mutations. So it's partially based on random occurences.

I'm no fan of Dawkins myself... don't let dislike of one man prejudice you against scientific facts.

wa:do

I'm not the only one who is proposing tihs idea, scientists like Shapiro and Kaufmann also suggest that natural selection is not primary mechanism of evolution. And they are much more renowned than Dawkins is, scientifically speaking.

 

[Skwim]

scientists like Shapiro and Kaufmann also suggest that natural selection is not primary mechanism of evolution. And they are much more renowned than Dawkins is, scientifically speaking.

The very same kauffman who "suggested we need a new scientific worldview that goes beyond reductionism and
incorporates a religious sensibility."

 

[MD]

The very same kauffman who "suggested we need a new scientific worldview that goes beyond reductionism and
incorporates a religious sensibility."

Reductionism has been proven to be incomplete with regards to qualia, consciousness and self organization. He is right, we need to move past reductionism. Oh did you forget to mention that he's a genius?

I feel bad that you had to facepalm, it just shows your ignorance

 

[Skwim]

Reductionism has been proven to be incomplete with regards to qualia, consciousness and self organization. He is right, we need to move past reductionism. Oh did you forget to mention that he's a genius?

Your hero who's wrapped up in incorporating a religious sensibility in thee scientific worldview? Nope. Never knew he was a genius. Should I care?

I feel bad that you had to facepalm, it just shows your ignorance

Nah, you don't feel bad at all. You're kind of delighted to find something you think will get to me.

By the way,

Charles Darwin's IQ is listed as165.
Kauffman's isn't even listed. Hmmmmm! :sarcastic
source

"Lewis Terman (1916) developed the original notion of IQ and proposed this scale for classifying IQ scores:
Over 140 - Genius or near genius
120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence
110 - 119 - Superior intelligence
90 - 109 - Normal or average intelligence
80 - 89 - Dullness
70 - 79 - Borderline deficiency
Under 70 - Definite feeble-mindedness
________________________________________________

High IQ & Genius IQ
Genius IQ is generally considered to begin around 140 to 145, representing ~.25% of the population (1 in 400). Here's a rough guide:
115-124 - Above average (e.g., university students)
125-134 - Gifted (e.g., post-graduate students)
135-144 - Highly gifted (e.g., intellectuals)
145-154 - Genius (e.g., professors)
155-164 - Genius (e.g., Nobel Prize winners)
165-179 - High genius
180-200 - Highest genius
>200 - "Unmeasurable genius" "
source
​

 

[MD]

Your hero who's wrapped up in incorporating a religious sensibility in thee scientific worldview? Nope. Never knew he was a genius. Should I care?

Nah, you don't feel bad at all. You're kind of delighted to find something you think will get to me.

By the way,

Charles Darwin's IQ is listed as165.
Kauffman's isn't even listed. Hmmmmm! :sarcastic
source

"Lewis Terman (1916) developed the original notion of IQ and proposed this scale for classifying IQ scores:
Over 140 - Genius or near genius
120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence
110 - 119 - Superior intelligence
90 - 109 - Normal or average intelligence
80 - 89 - Dullness
70 - 79 - Borderline deficiency
Under 70 - Definite feeble-mindedness
________________________________________________

High IQ & Genius IQ
Genius IQ is generally considered to begin around 140 to 145, representing ~.25% of the population (1 in 400). Here's a rough guide:
115-124 - Above average (e.g., university students)
125-134 - Gifted (e.g., post-graduate students)
135-144 - Highly gifted (e.g., intellectuals)
145-154 - Genius (e.g., professors)
155-164 - Genius (e.g., Nobel Prize winners)
165-179 - High genius
180-200 - Highest genius
>200 - "Unmeasurable genius" "
source
​

Instead of debating the merits of my argument you are nicely pulling ad homs and deflecting the topic onto other matters, such as the religious opinion of a scientist. That's usually what creationists do when faced with evidence and it seems like you're doing the same. Bravo.

You do realize the majority of scientists are somewhat religious, don't you? Talk about militant atheism.

Self organization is not Kaufmann's invention, it was actually introduced in 1947. It has evidence behind it and highly credible scientists who back it up.

Just because you read a couple of textbooks by Dawkins and watch a couple of James Randi videos, it doesn't make you an expert on science. Try debating the actual topic at hand instead of attacking any religious beliefs scientists hold.

And since we're discussing IQ, the highest IQ in America belongs to a bouncer who lifts weights, is an idealist monist and believes in intelligent design. IQ quite frankly is a poor measure of how valid one's ideas are when compared to new evidence.

 

[rusra02]

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.

Your example doesn't state where these "simple things" come from or how the patterns begin. Where did the first pigment producing cell come from? A seashell doesn't make itself, and neither did the creature living inside it. A painting requires a painter, whether it's a seashell or the Mona Lisa.
Calling this self-organizing complexity is just a fancy way of claiming all the amazing designs manifest in nature just ...happened. In my mind, the only reasonable explanation is the simple explanation given in the Bible: "O Sovereign Lord Jehovah! Here you yourself have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm." (Jeremiah 32:17)

​

​

 

[otokage007]

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

The laws of enthropy state that every system tends to disorder. Don't they?

Natural selection states that a system is selected for order.

What do u mean?

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

Mutations are not part of natural selection. So u can't use this to say natural selection is random.

Environmental changes are not random, if they were, we wouldn't be able to predict them. Isn't it?

 

[painted wolf]

In some instances it's fully within the system, in some instances it's outside the system. It still implies that the self organized system is required first for such occurences to actually take place. You can have self organization without natural selection, but you can't have natural selection without a self organizing system.

You can't have either without quantum physics either, but that's neither here nor there. You wouldn't claim that quantum physics is more important to evolution than natural selection or self organization.

Evolution is the accumulation of changes over millions of years at the molecular level ie bp changes.

Actually, it's more proper to say that evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

Just saying that it's an accumulation of changes over millions of years misses a significant portion of evolution. ie. that it happens at the population level.

Mutations are random. Darwinian natural selection is how well the species adapts to the environment based only on random mutations. So it's partially based on random occurences.

Mutations are random... natural selection is not. Just like the electron given off by a decaying atom is random but radiation is not.

Frankly "Darwinian natural selection" isn't really taught as it's own thing anymore and Darwin himself never knew about mutations.

Arguing against "Darwinian natural selection" is like arguing against Newtonian physics and ignoring relativity and quantum mechanics. Science has moved on from the initial discoveries.

I'm not the only one who is proposing tihs idea, scientists like Shapiro and Kaufmann also suggest that natural selection is not primary mechanism of evolution. And they are much more renowned than Dawkins is, scientifically speaking.

Look, once again... Dawkins doesn't matter.

I honestly don't care about him one way or the other because Dawkins does not equal evolution.
Evolution does not rely on Dawkins for it's factual existence. He's just a guy.

Simply holding up a couple of names as evidence that the idea is valid is not itself a valid argument.

Kaufmann actually has done some good work supporting his ideas, but even he doesn't propose replacing or removing natural selection. Instead, from what I've read, he augments it with physics.

Here is a good rebuttal to Shapiro's recent writing on the subject: James Shapiro goes after natural selection again (twice) on HuffPo « Why Evolution Is True

wa:do

 

[Skwim]

Instead of debating the merits of my argument you are nicely pulling ad homs and deflecting the topic onto other matters, such as the religious opinion of a scientist. That's usually what creationists do when faced with evidence and it seems like you're doing the same. Bravo.

Let's see. Who was it who expected us to read the evidence in the articles you linked to?

LOL did you bother to read all the evidence I have posted from the articles and wikipeida ??My guess would be no

​

Ah yes, YOU!
And guess what the article said; "[kauffman]"suggested we need a new scientific worldview that goes beyond reductionism and
incorporates a religious sensibility."
But I understand why we're supposed to pick only the stuff that bolsters your case, and ignore everything that doesn't.

You do realize the majority of scientists are somewhat religious, don't you? Talk about militant atheism.

So what? Is this red herring really supposed to be meaningful?

Just because you read a couple of textbooks by Dawkins and watch a couple of James Randi videos, it doesn't make you an expert on science.

Please stop assuming to be true "facts" not put into evidence. I understand why you do it, but please stop.

Try debating the actual topic at hand instead of attacking any religious beliefs scientists hold.

If you had read me properly you would have noted that I wasn't attacking any religious belief---I couldn't care less what Kauffman's relious beliefs are---but rather his use of religion; namely: injecting some kind of religious sensibility into a scientific worldview.

And since we're discussing IQ, the highest IQ in America belongs to a bouncer who lifts weights, is an idealist monist and believes in intelligent design. IQ quite frankly is a poor measure of how valid one's ideas are when compared to new evidence.

Yet you---not me---felt it necessary to bring intelligence level into your argument.

"Oh did you forget to mention that he's a genius?"
​

The aim being a reminder that anyone who's a genius can never be wrong. One word for your attempt here: "pathetic."

 

[otokage007]

Yet you---not me---felt it necessary to bring intelligence level into your argument.

"Oh did you forget to mention that he's a genius?"
​

The aim being a reminder that anyone who's a genius can never be wrong. One word for your attempt here: "pathetic."

Not all high IQs use their intelligence properly.

 

[Skwim]

Not all high IQs use their intelligence properly.

Ain't dat the trut.

 

[MD]

The laws of enthropy state that every system tends to disorder. Don't they?

The law of entropy states that overall the universe if closed it approaching disorder. If a system moves towards order by increasing the overall disorder of the universe, then it fits the laws of entropy.

Mutations are not part of natural selection. So u can't use this to say natural selection is random.

Environmental changes are not random, if they were, we wouldn't be able to predict them. Isn't it?

I thought that Darwinian natural selection was basically how specific alleles over generations adapt to the environment? The only form of adaptation was through a gene or genes conferring fitness, and those genes themselves are the product of random mutations ?

Environmental changes are not totally random, but I don't think they are algorithmic. Also by environmental changes, we are talking about universal environmental changes. Asteroids and solar activity would be impossible for us to predict, not to mention other extra solar activity.

 

[MD]

You can't have either without quantum physics either, but that's neither here nor there. You wouldn't claim that quantum physics is more important to evolution than natural selection or self organization.

I would claim that quantum phyiscs is more important towards understanding reality and everything that exists within the universe, including natural selection or self organization or evolution. It might even be more important to understand evolution in our own universe, considering how bp mutations take place on a molecular level I can bet some day in the future we will be examining how QM affects evolution as well.

Actually, it's more proper to say that evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

Just saying that it's an accumulation of changes over millions of years misses a significant portion of evolution. ie. that it happens at the population level.

True but most allele frequencies change over a long time. I thought the only way a multicellular species can adapt is if they already have a set of genes which have accumulated and can adapt to the environment?

Arguing against "Darwinian natural selection" is like arguing against Newtonian physics and ignoring relativity and quantum mechanics. Science has moved on from the initial discoveries.

I'm not arguing against Darwinian natural selection, just against the notion that a system only adapts to it's environment based on the chance mutations it posesses. The more positive mutations, the more offspring it produces. The fewer positive mutations, the more likely the system ceases to exist. If a system has the intrinsic capacity for plasticity and not for random mutations conferring fitness, then it makes it a valid theory especially if it has evidence backing it up.

 

[MD]

Ah yes, YOU!
And guess what the article said; "[kauffman]"suggested we need a new scientific worldview that goes beyond reductionism and
incorporates a religious sensibility."
But I understand why we're supposed to pick only the stuff that bolsters your case, and ignore everything that doesn't.

I put the articles out there, one stated that SO and NS were complementary and one suggested that SO was more significant as a mechanism. If you didn't bother to read them, it's not my fault. I also put the quotes there to engage the posters to comment, not for your inane nonsensical posts.

Please stop assuming to be true "facts" not put into evidence. I understand why you do it, but please stop.

What? Learn to write properly, this sounds like gibberish.

If you had read me properly you would have noted that I wasn't attacking any religious belief---I couldn't care less what Kauffman's relious beliefs are---but rather his use of religion; namely: injecting some kind of religious sensibility into a scientific worldview.

First of all he didn't inject religion. Again learn proper english please, religion and faith are not synonymous. He injected faith, belief, God, etc. I know you have a problem with that and that's your choice, but a scientist he has the right to state that he feels that current scientific discoveries imply a creative force in the universe. I know you really really really don't want that to be true and you love to beat down on others like your idols but atleast pretend to be intelligent by cutting and pasting arguments from other websites.

Yet you---not me---felt it necessary to bring intelligence level into your argument.

"Oh did you forget to mention that he's a genius?"
​

The aim being a reminder that anyone who's a genius can never be wrong. One word for your attempt here: "pathetic."

No the aim here was to show that a genius in his field has a much better grasp of the science than either of us and is qualified to express his own subjective opinions. You on the other hand do not have a grasp at all on anything, and by calling my arguments pathetic you seem to stick to your own ad homs because quite frankly you cannot muster up even the slightest scientific argument to defend your point.

Painted wolf (as always) has defended and even challenged my claims beautifully. You just babble and mutter ad homs like a grumpy old grinch (and I'm using the word grinch here because anything else will result in me getting warnings from moderators).

 

[Skwim]

I put the articles out there, one stated that SO and NS were complementary and one suggested that SO was more significant as a mechanism. If you didn't bother to read them, it's not my fault. I also put the quotes there to engage the posters to comment, not for your inane nonsensical posts.

Yeah, we get it already. Sheesh!
Confronted by an embarassing aspect of your hero your best recourse is to shoot the messenger. Not to fault you from trying to avoid the issue, i.e. incorporating a religious sensibility in a new scientific worldview---I wouldn't be very pleased with it either if I was you---but pretending it isn't there is a child's tactic.

What? Learn to write properly, this sounds like gibberish.

Talk about ad homs! But then it probably is over your head. What can I say I misjudged you.

First of all he didn't inject religion.

I know it sometimes works to purposely misquote someone so as to set them up for an easy, but erronious rebuttle, but I'm not letting you get away with it (other people read this stuff too)---or is it that you actually have misread me? Whatever the case, neither speaks well of you. So . . . . . to explain. Of course I didn't say he injected religion into a new scientific worldview. I said---and please read carefully--- "religious sensibility." Note how "religious" functions not as the oject of the statement but as the object's ("sensibilities") modifier. "Religious" modifies "sensibilities." BIG difference. VERY BIG. Now, if you don't understand the difference I'll be happy to explain, *but* you'll have to use the magic word.

Again learn proper english please, religion and faith are not synonymous.

Because you are still under the erronious impression I said "religion" there's no need to go into your comments any further, and because I'm beginning to find your ill conceived assumptions tiresome I'll leave this post as it stands.

Have a good night. :bounce

 

[otokage007]

I thought that Darwinian natural selection was basically how specific alleles over generations adapt to the environment? The only form of adaptation was through a gene or genes conferring fitness, and those genes themselves are the product of random mutations ?

I don't like to quote wikipedia. But Natural selection it's quite simple actually. Here u have:

"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. The term "natural selection" was popularized by Charles Darwin who intended it to be compared with artificial selection, what we now call selective breeding."

Environmental changes are not totally random, but I don't think they are algorithmic. Also by environmental changes, we are talking about universal environmental changes. Asteroids and solar activity would be impossible for us to predict, not to mention other extra solar activity.

There are experts that work predicting solar activity. And I think there's few (if any) environmental changes involved in natural selection that can't be more or less predicted.

True but most allele frequencies change over a long time.

Only if these alleles mutate or if they vary because of natural selection. I don't think "most alleles" vary over time. There's a lot of DNA sequences that are conserved from the simplest eucaryotic to us.

I thought the only way a multicellular species can adapt is if they already have a set of genes which have accumulated and can adapt to the environment?

That's true for all living creatures, they all accumulate mutations before adapting. Why have u named just the "multicellular"?

 

[MD]

I don't like to quote wikipedia. But Natural selection it's quite simple actually. Here u have:

"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. The term "natural selection" was popularized by Charles Darwin who intended it to be compared with artificial selection, what we now call selective breeding."

Okay then perhaps I shouldn't have said natural selection in my thread. I should've said 'mutations and the filtering of natural selection on those mutations as the primary mechanism of evolution'.

I was under the impression that the conventional understanding of evolution was that evolution occurs through random mutations conferring different levels of fitness on individuals who are filtered by natural selection.

There are experts that work predicting solar activity. And I think there's few (if any) environmental changes involved in natural selection that can't be more or less predicted.

Well we don't know enough about the sun or physics to really predict its activity. What about asteroids? To be honest even if there are few environmental non predictable changes involved in natural selection that can't be predicted, that makes it partially random.

Only if these alleles mutate or if they vary because of natural selection. I don't think "most alleles" vary over time. There's a lot of DNA sequences that are conserved from the simplest eucaryotic to us.

All alleles change over time. The ones that can adapt are fit, the ones that can't are not. The DNA sequences are conserved through repair mechanisms but repair mechanisms aren't perfect. So you can still have minimal changes over a long time, which accumulate over time into creating new proteins.

That's true for all living creatures, they all accumulate mutations before adapting. Why have u named just the "multicellular"?

Because unicellular organisms can have one mutation which allows them to adapt?

 

[Agnostic75]

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."

It would be interesting what members of a physics forum at Physics Forum think about what you said. Perhaps you would also like to discuss these issues there as well. There are some pretty knowlegde people at that forum.

 

[otokage007]

Okay then perhaps I shouldn't have said natural selection in my thread. I should've said 'mutations and the filtering of natural selection on those mutations as the primary mechanism of evolution'.

I was under the impression that the conventional understanding of evolution was that evolution occurs through random mutations conferring different levels of fitness on individuals who are filtered by natural selection.

That's much more accurate. That filtering is what makes evolution a non random process.

All alleles change over time. The ones that can adapt are fit, the ones that can't are not. The DNA sequences are conserved through repair mechanisms but repair mechanisms aren't perfect. So you can still have minimal changes over a long time, which accumulate over time into creating new proteins.

I agree with that. But the "creating new proteins" part, doesn't always happen. Sometimes the creature just won't survive a sequence that produces a new protein, and by dying, that mutation's frequence on the population will sink again.

Because unicellular organisms can have one mutation which allows them to adapt?

I see now that by multicellular you mean what I call pluricellular. To me, multicellular is just a bunch of unicellular beings that live all together and can't live isolated.