# A Discussion of Evolutionary Theory



## heretic888 (Sep 2, 2005)

Recently, Loki began a thread concerning a discussion of sociobiologist Richard Dawkins' theories presented in the book, _The Selfish Gene_. This prompted me to do a little bit of research concerning the ideas of Mr. Dawkins, particularly the position he refers to as "Universal Darwinism".

Sometime later, I came across a recent issue of _Time_ magazine in which an in-depth cover story highlighting the "debate" between Darwinism and Intelligent Design was covered. While I don't buy into Intelligent Design myself (nor its mentally-handicapped cousin Creationism), I did find some of the critiques its proponents leveled at traditional Darwinism (or, neo-Darwinism really) to be intriguing.

This prompted me to do a bit of research on my own, and I came across a string of theories and ideas that are collectively referred to as post-Darwinism. Many of these ideas focus on things like: constraints on evolution that lead to "directional" patterns of development, the inability of random variation and natural selection to adequately explain macroevolution, instances of genetic "staltation" that occur during development between species (subsequently making the evolutionary Tree of Life more like a Net of Life), self-organization theories that result in developmental hierarchies of increasing complexity, and neo-Lamarckian ideas that organisms can in some instances "select" adaptations for their own environment (this fits in somewhat with multilevel selection and has been demonstrated by E. Coli strands and, arguably, by human beings).

I realize that much of these theories are held by a minority (albeit a vocal minority) within the scientific community. However, they seem to be largely supported by evidence (albeit not always conclusive) and don't discount natural selection so much as complementing it within a larger theoretical framework. Not having a particularly strong background in biology myself, I find post-Darwinism to be far more compelling than the mainstream neo-Darwinism taught in most schools today. It also seems to fit more fluidly with the process theology of Alfred North Whitehead and integral philosophy of Ken Wilber (as well as traditional Hegelian philosophy), all of which I have some affinity for.

So, my question to all of you is what is your position regarding the state of evolutionary theory? I think any rational person that has reviewed the data would have to come to the conclusion that evolutionary adaptation of some kind _is_ a reality. At the same time, however, there seems to be some disagreement on the exact mechanisms of evolution.

What do you think??


----------



## Loki (Sep 2, 2005)

Bet ya' didn't expect to see _me_ here, did ya'... :uhyeah:

 Like you, I don't have a very strong background in biology either, so most of what you just brought up might as well have been hieroglyphics. Could you provide some links to these critiques?

 The points can muster some kind of opinion on I will reply to:

 What are the cases where natural selection and random variation can't explain macroevolution? I recently heard this as a theistic argument against it, but could you have meant "prove" rather than "explain"? That's what the argument did, and promtly concluded that if natural selection can't prove macroevolution, it must be God. Sheesh. 

 Another point is that evolution is, like you say, effectively fact. It's the mechanism which is in dispute. An interesting article on it can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 Like many others said, Dawkins is very convincing, so I'm going with his view until presented with data to the contrary.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Sep 2, 2005)

heriticdude said:
			
		

> Sometime later, I came across a recent issue of _Time_ magazine in which an in-depth cover story highlighting the "debate" between Darwinism and Intelligent Design was covered. While I don't buy into Intelligent Design myself, I did find some of the critiques its proponents leveled at traditional Darwinism (or, neo-Darwinism really) to be intriguing.
> 
> *constraints on evolution that lead to "directional" patterns of development, the inability of random variation and natural selection to adequately explain macroevolution, instances of genetic "staltation" that occur during development between species (subsequently making the evolutionary Tree of Life more like a Net of Life), self-organization theories that result in developmental hierarchies of increasing complexity, and neo-Lamarckian ideas that organisms can in some instances "select" adaptations for their own environment (this fits in somewhat with multilevel selection and has been demonstrated by E. Coli strands and, arguably, by human beings).*
> 
> ...


hmmm...

The study of Ultimate Causes is frought with difficulties. The path of Evolution cannot be determined with any sort of mathematical certainty. It cannot be done. Therefore, there cannot be any predetermination of sorting variations. 

I am fairly sure that it is a mistake to use the word "theory" when contemplating Evolutionary Science. That's just my opinion. The Ph.D.s know what they are doing (I hope!). A hypothesis that sits on top of the heap doesn't qualify as a theory. Evolution cannot be analyzed in a lab. IMHO, mistakes are too easily made using comparison. 

I think that alot of the "new evolution" schools of thought are made up of concepts that merely fill in what their creators think of as 'the holes left by Darwin,' and that is why they remain in the minority (IMO). Anyone can create a new phylogeny that dipicts whatever they want, and it becomes a problem when we are left with only comparitive methods to determine what is most correct.

I have serious reservations about "neo-lamarckian" ideas simply because they bring up Lamarck. Transformationalism has been fully discredited by the modern study of genetics. I am not at all familiar with this neo-lamarckism; however, I love to kick around new ideas just to see what they will yield. Maybe I hold inaccurate viewpoints in one or more areas. I am not afraid to see what is "out there." 

At this point in time, my opinion of Darwinism is that it is a useful educational tool...

I am hardly an expert, but I would love to debate some of the various aspects of evolution and neo-evolutionary ideas. We might come up with something interesting.


----------



## Loki (Sep 2, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> I am fairly sure that it is a mistake to use the word "theory" when contemplating Evolutionary Science. That's just my opinion. The Ph.D.s know what they are doing (I hope!). A hypothesis that sits on top of the heap doesn't qualify as a theory. Evolution cannot be analyzed in a lab. IMHO, mistakes are too easily made using comparison.


 Actually, evolution _has_ been studied in a lab. I'll look up the exact exmple and get back to you.



> I think that alot of the "new evolution" schools of thought are made up of concepts that merely fill in what their creators think of as 'the holes left by Darwin,' and that is why they remain in the minority (IMO). Anyone can create a new phylogeny that dipicts whatever they want, and it becomes a problem when we are left with only comparitive methods to determine what is most correct.


 That's the feeling I get too, but if someone else has contradictory evidence, a better theory or any conflicting with Darwin, I'm willing to listen.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Sep 2, 2005)

> Actually, evolution _has_ been studied in a lab. I'll look up the exact exmple and get back to you.


Well, unless it is a multi-million year study... :lol:

I know that there are some limited examples of microevolution that can be studied (like the moths in England), but as far as the 'big picture'...I just can't see how. 

*patiently awaiting the link* 



> I'm willing to listen.


Me too.  This has the potential to become a darn good thread.


----------



## Loki (Sep 2, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> Well, unless it is a multi-million year study... :lol:
> 
> I know that there are some limited examples of microevolution that can be studied (like the moths in England), but as far as the 'big picture'...I just can't see how.
> 
> *patiently awaiting the link*


 Then we have misunderstanding. When you said "evolution cannot be analyzed in a lab", I thought you were referring to all evolution.

 How one would actually empirically prove macroevolution without such a study eludes me, but lacking such proof doesn't mean it's wrong.


----------



## goshawk (Sep 2, 2005)

Hey, a (thus-far) intelligent, non-feces-flinging thread on evolution. I'm impressed. ::grin::

As far as I'm concerned, Intelligent Design is complete BS, never mind "Creationism". The body of evidence and number of scientific studies backing up the theory of evolution is far too great to ignore in the name of theology. 

The biggest peeve I have with the common understanding of evolution these days (even from proponents of evolution theory) is the vaguely Lamarckian idea that "this trait was the best, so it got selected to survive", which is _almost_ correct but not quite. Selection is a negative process, not a positive one; simply, the traits that don't survive die out, and the ones that survive don't die out.

This means that occasionally really stupid, inefficient or redundant features survive the process of selection; for example, all the back- and shoulder- problems we suffer due to being poorly designed for an upright posture are unlikely to go away through evolution--the current level of civilization we've realized as a species means that they're not likely to kill us before we procreate. And _that, _right there, is the bottom line; if the trait is able/likely to breed, it will be passed on. If it negatively affects the individual's reproductive success, it's a dead trait walking, so to speak. 

I can't tell you how many times I went through that in my Anthropology class. =| It's definitely a point of severe irritation for me. However, I find that quite a few people who never understood that become much more open-minded towards evolution after it's been adequately explained.

As to all the little bare patches and gaps in the theory...well, it's not like we've reached the pinnacle of scientific understanding. Who knows, maybe in fifty years they'll be looking back and laughing at us silly Darwinists like we laugh at the Heliocentric view of the universe. ::shrug:: Meantime, evolution's the best we've got.


----------



## Blindside (Sep 2, 2005)

Interesting article on a possible new species that seems to have been generated from hybridization:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution/dn7741

Lamont


----------



## KenpoEMT (Sep 2, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Then we have misunderstanding. When you said "evolution cannot be analyzed in a lab", I thought you were referring to all evolution.


 Well, differential survival and reproduction amoung members of a given population certainly can be studied. You are absolutely correct in your assertation that microevolution can be directly observed to a limited degree; however, Gradualism states that said variations occur over millions of years. We can only see a snap-shot picture of these adaptations. Whether or not they will persist is unknown. 



> How one would actually empirically prove macroevolution without such a study eludes me, but lacking such proof doesn't mean it's wrong.


Yeah, that's exactly what I say. If it cannot be demonstrated, it is not a theory. It's barely more than a hypothesis. 
Comparative analysis does not impress me when it comes to determining orgins, but it is all we can use at this point in time.



> This means that occasionally really stupid, inefficient or redundant features survive the process of selection


Yes, like my ex-wife :lol:


----------



## Loki (Sep 2, 2005)

goshawk said:
			
		

> Hey, a (thus-far) intelligent, non-feces-flinging thread on evolution. I'm impressed. ::grin::


 *puts down bucket of feces*

 Damnit goshawk... do you have any idea the amount of monet I spent on laxitives?



> As far as I'm concerned, Intelligent Design is complete BS, never mind "Creationism". The body of evidence and number of scientific studies backing up the theory of evolution is far too great to ignore in the name of theology.
> 
> The biggest peeve I have with the common understanding of evolution these days (even from proponents of evolution theory) is the vaguely Lamarckian idea that "this trait was the best, so it got selected to survive", which is _almost_ correct but not quite. Selection is a negative process, not a positive one; simply, the traits that don't survive die out, and the ones that survive don't die out.
> 
> ...


 Lamarck's concept of inheritance of acquired traits is not only not proven, it's been _disproven _by genetics_. 

_Yup, and in addition to back problems we have junk DNA and lethal genes, an excellent reason to avoid incest if I've ever heard one.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Sep 2, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> Yup, and in addition to back problems we have junk DNA and lethal genes, an excellent reason to avoid incest if I've ever heard one.


Well, that and the fact that incest is, you know...yucky.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 2, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> So, my question to all of you is what is your position regarding the state of evolutionary theory?


As a person who is somewhat learned in this stuff, I'll hedge my bets with evolution.  I think that evolution, as a process, is the dominant factor in our lives.  Good evidence exists that shows that evolution shaped our phylogeny.  More evidence exists that shows that evolution shaped our minds.  

The conflict is in the details...and I'm not sure which to discuss.  We could talk about positive selection pressures, negative selection pressures, sexual selection pressures, Human Endogenic Retro Viruses...etc.  We probably should pick one and focus...

Or we could just discuss various questions...such as the studying of macroevolution.  This _can_ be studied in the lab.  One of my Professors has four species of plesiosaurs ranging from 120mya to 70 mya.  One can compare the differences between the plesiosaurs species and correlate them with stratigraphic/paleoenvironmental data.  One can clearly see that as the environment changed, so did the plesiosaur...in fact, sometimes massive changes occured.  This study occured in a lab.  

Also, at the University of Chicago, one can do a similar study with whales and their ancestors.  If taking a four legged land dwelling predator and changing it into a "fish" isn't macroevolution, I don't know what is.


----------



## Loki (Sep 2, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As a person who is somewhat learned in this stuff, I'll hedge my bets with evolution. I think that evolution, as a process, is the dominant factor in our lives. Good evidence exists that shows that evolution shaped our phylogeny. More evidence exists that shows that evolution shaped our minds.
> 
> The conflict is in the details...and I'm not sure which to discuss. We could talk about positive selection pressures, negative selection pressures, sexual selection pressures, Human Endogenic Retro Viruses...etc. We probably should pick one and focus...
> 
> ...


 Really interesting stuff you got there. Has your professor gone public with this? And if so, why isn't this acknowledged as proof for macroevolution.

 The land-dweller became a fish? I always though it was the other way around.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 2, 2005)

The plesiosaur study is a very common study.  It has been done with many many other types of ancient animals...humans and their ancestors being the most famous example.

Turning a four legged predator into a "fish" was a cutsy way of saying "like a fish."  Whales are mammals and breath air, but they kinda look like fish.

As far as geochronology is concerned, land was first invaded by the sea...


----------



## KenpoEMT (Sep 3, 2005)

Sure, the comparative method can be used in a lab...or in your living room. 


You cannot test macroevolution in a laboratory. Generally speaking, experiments conducted in a laboratory require controls. What kind of control is available for studying evolution? Testing macroevolution and observing the results against contols CANNOT be done in a laboratory. The comparative method and the experimental method are two different animals. The comparative method isn't something that I would hang my hat on. 

Here's an example: The _Brontosaurus_ never really existed. We've known that since the 1800's. On how many phylogenies do you see _Brontasaurus_? Marsh made a mistake. It is not hard to find mistakes in comparative studies.
...and how about Cope and_ Platyurus_?

There are many, many examples of honest mistakes and outright fraud. 

You are basically accepting nothing more than an educated guess (and sometimes an educated deception).

Without observable and testable data, it becomes very difficult to recognize even the simplest mistake.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 3, 2005)

An experiment is one form of verification in the scientific method.  Some "experiments" do not have the classical test tube look, but it does not negate their power.  

In fact, you take drugs that depend on this power.  Some biologic cannot be created in the laboratory.  Protein folding, for instance, is too complex to be recreated in the laboratory.  The only studies that can even begin to probe its depths, are comparative analysis.

As far as controls go, they are there, but in many cases are theoretical.  When the bones are in front of you, there isn't really much _to_ control.  In other comparative experiments, more concrete controls can be established.  

Macroevolution _can and has_ been studied in the lab.  Thousands of examples have been verified.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 3, 2005)

Wow. I didn't expect this many posts in such a short time. I guess this is a hot topic for a lot of people.

To address some querries brought up:

1) Before anyone gets any misunderstandings here, I am _not_ disputing the reality of evolution _nor_ am I basing my critiques on a theistic argument. In fact, as I've demonstrated abundantly in the past, in no way am I a 'theist' in the traditional sense (panentheist, maybe).

2) While I am interested in disussing the philosophical as well as biological aspects of evolutionary theory, this isn't really meant to be a discussion of 'Ultimate Causes'. I personally believe in a type of neo-Hegelian spiritual progression (and post-Darwinism fits in nicely with this), but I don't feel it is necessary (nor prudent) to base critiques of biological theories on such beliefs.

2) A large part of the critiques of neo-Darwinism is that it is assumed _a priori_ that random variation and natural selection produce macroevolutionary changes or even Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated evolution. Pointing out changes in the environment that occured co-temporaneously with changes in a species is correlation, not causation. The debate is to whether other mechanisms (such as self-organization theories or virogenetic "staltation") can more adequately explain macroevolutonary changes. A large part of this also revolves around the existence of transitional forms between species (some of the post-Darwinist ideas effectively rule out the need for transitional forms, making the arguments of Intelligent Design proponents void). 

3) Please note that just because Lamarckism has been ruled out does not mean the same can be said of neo-Lamarckism. Darwinism (as in, what Darwin actually said in totality) has also been thoroughly discredited. However, neo-Darwinism (the so-called "synthetic model" which combines some principles of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics and inceased knowledge of things like geography, chemistry, and so forth) is now widely accepted in academic circles. Part of the argument here is that neo-Darwinism is to post-Darwinism what Darwinism is to neo-Darwinism (i.e., one does not rebuff the other, but merely puts it in a broader theoretical context).

4) It should be noted that just because something is currently in the minority in science does not mean it is ill-founded. In much the same way, theories revolving around post-formal stages of cognitive development are in the minority in developmental psychology. But, this is by and large because the field is so relatively young (both post-Darwinism and neo-Piagetianism have only presented positive evidence within the past 20 years or so). My speculation is that both sets of theories will gain increasing acceptance over the next few decades, up to the point where the minority becomes the majority.

5) With all due respect to Dr. Dawkins, the ideas espoused in _The Selfish Gene_ are based upon research that is now well over 30 years old (which probably used technology much older than this). When asked about post-Darwinism on a Q & A forum, Dawkins had no idea what the questioner was talking about and thought it was the same thing as neo-Darwinism. His theory of gene-centrism, as well as what he calls Universal Darwinism, are not particularly popular these days (from what I can tell, anyway). Even the talkorigins.org site is somewhat critical of them.

6) Its all well and good to say that "evolution shaped our minds", but be careful not to stray into the speculative claims made by evolutionary psychology. Of course, evolutionary psychology assumes a type of Universal Darwinism itself, which is probably a large part of its problem (along with the whole general lack of direct research thing).

In my next few posts, I'll try to fish up some of the links regarding the claims of post-Darwinism. Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 3, 2005)

Here is a good primer on Evolutionary Psychology.  This field, I believe, is in its infancy.  However, the assertion that there is no research to back its claims is incorrect.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 3, 2005)

Here is a nice little list of transitional fossils that have been found.  

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 3, 2005)

Blindside said:
			
		

> Interesting article on a possible new species that seems to have been generated from hybridization:
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution/dn7741



Ironically, cases such as these are one such example of some post-Darwinian principles in action.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 3, 2005)

Here is a more indepth primer of Evolutionary Psychology written by two founders of the field.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 3, 2005)

One of the hallmarks of post-darwinism has been the application of genetics to the field.  When scientists studied genetics, they found mobile elements, HERV, that had the real possability to effect large change in organisms over a short amount of time.  Some scientists have compared the driving force behind this process to a feedback loop constantly monitoring itself.  Others say that this is just another form of "the man behind the curtain".  Regardless of the arguments, horizontal transmission of HERV does explain things like sub-speciation...data is accumulating.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 3, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Here is a good primer on Evolutionary Psychology.  This field, I believe, is in its infancy.  However, the assertion that there is no research to back its claims is incorrect.



With all due respect, I'd highly suggest actually reading some of the articles submitted by evolutionary psychologists.

The majority of them come off more as philosophy papers than psychology research articles. Typical of these is a paper I read a few months back which asserted that 'teleological' thinking was adaptive for our evolutionary ancestors, with the only research being cited was a few vague references to Piaget (who in no sense was an evolutionary psychologist). No concrete examples were given as to how 'teleology' might have been adaptive to our hominid ancestors, certainly not any backed up with evidence.

Those that do provide actual research generally follow the following format (and this is from another paper I read a while back): 1) regarding certain moral dilemmas (such as incest) participants demonstrate an almost automatic repulsion which they cannot logically explain, 2) therefore, moral reasoning (a la Kohlberg and Gilligan) doesn't exist or is irrelevant, and 3) our moral emotions evolved because they proved adaptive for our evolutionary ancestors.

Of course, no evidence is provided showing these "moral emotions" as being adaptive for our ancestors. It is just assumed _a priori_ that they must be (or else why would we have them, right?). This is philosophy, not science. A philosophy of Universal Darwinism.

In all honesty, Freud had about as much evidence for his claims as most of these guys do. This is why psychologists outside of evolutionary psychology kind of treat it as everybody's weird uncle that we all make fun of (by contrast, you won't see biopsychologists and social psychologists taking such shots at each other --- even though their fields make diametrically opposite claims), part of the reason being that evolutionary psychologists tend to make grandiose and narcissistic claims like how their field will "unify" psychology and some such nonsense. This always reaks of academic hubris.

By contrast, guys outside of psychology (typically biologists and chemists) love evolutionary psychology. Why? Simple, because it tells them that they're the ones that are right, not these silly cognitivists, structuralists, humanists, and psychoanalysts.

If you think I'm BS-ing any of this, feel free to ask Feisty Mouse. She's an actual psychologist, whereas I'm just a lowly undergrad student with an above-average brain.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 3, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Here is a nice little list of transitional fossils that have been found.
> 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html



Very nice. 

However, I should point out that post-Darwinism doesn't claim that transitional forms don't exist. Merely that, in some cases, they aren't _needed_ to explain macroevolutionary developments.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 3, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> An experiment is one form of verification in the scientific method.  Some "experiments" do not have the classical test tube look, but it does not negate their power.



Not to go off-topic here, but I agree with this assessment 100%. 

One of the general misunderstandings many people (including a good number of scientists themselves) have about the scientific method is that it can only be applied to study physical or 'naturalistic' phenomena. This is flatly untrue.

Any phenomena that can be replicatedly studied (be it an emotional response, a chemical reaction, or a fossil) can be put under the banner of scientific process. Test tubes are not required, just verification and falsifiability.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 3, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> With all due respect, I'd highly suggest actually reading some of the articles submitted by evolutionary psychologists.
> 
> The majority of them come off more as philosophy papers than psychology research articles. Typical of these is a paper I read a few months back which asserted that 'teleological' thinking was adaptive for our evolutionary ancestors, with the only research being cited was a few vague references to Piaget (who in no sense was an evolutionary psychologist). No concrete examples were given as to how 'teleology' might have been adaptive to our hominid ancestors, certainly not any backed up with evidence.
> 
> ...


I've read some good papers and some bad. Its the same with any field. However, I think the primary principles of EP are sound.

*Principle 1. The brain is a physical system. It functions as a computer. Its circuits are designed to generate behavior that is appropriate to your environmental circumstances.*

*Principle 2. Our neural circuits were designed by natural selection to solve problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary history.*

*Principle 3. Consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg; most of what goes on in your mind is hidden from you. As a result, your conscious experience can mislead you into thinking that our circuitry is simpler that it really is. Most problems that you experience as easy to solve are very difficult to solve -- they require very complicated neural circuitry.*

*Principle 4. Different neural circuits are specialized for solving different adaptive problems.*

*Principle 5. Our modern skulls house a stone age mind.* 

You are right about biologists and chemists, though. I have a hard time seeing it any other way.

I didn't intent to gank this thread, sorry. In fact, there is another thread on EP located here.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 3, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> However, I should point out that post-Darwinism doesn't claim that transitional forms don't exist. Merely that, in some cases, they aren't _needed_ to explain macroevolutionary developments.


True, but pointing out that the do exist raises interesting questions about how well some post-darwinian theories explain what is actually found in nature.  The existance of transition fossils seems to indicate a greater amount of time then some post-darwinians theories would account.  Basically, the way it breaks down is that some people are saying that evolution can happen in a quickfire manner, but transition fossils imply more time.


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 3, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Protein folding, for instance, is too complex to be recreated in the laboratory. The only studies that can even begin to probe its depths, are comparative analysis.


Really? Dang it  I'll have to tell the whole field to stop studying it then.

I've done some work in that area, and thats not really the case. Alot of computer work is being done to understand folding nature. Comparative analysis can only be done in one circumstance : you have something to compare with! that statement alone alone seems to mandate there is some kind of baseline for study.

Yes, it is difficult to study each individual atom, but macro features are easily detectable using techniques such as CD, EPR and Fluoresence spectroscopy. Well, relatively easy  Its actually a fast progressing field. There are annual competitions to see who can accurately predict the tertiary structure of some proteins based on primary sequence. Quite exciting stuff. Its not 100% accurate, but its really progressing! Alot is already understood, and in the next few years much more will be. One of the limitations currently is computational power (at least in some of my projects). Stinks when you want to run a simulation and it takes a few years on the finest supercomputers to finish. Especially if you end up with an invalid results. Some of the physical techniques evolved in the past 10-20 years, so they still have alot of work to do. Some exciting studies already completed.

Wish I had more time to comment on some of the things written here. Gotta head on vacation though. Keep the strand going, I've got a list of things I'd love to comment on... btw, this is pretty much my field of study.

MrH


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 3, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One of the hallmarks of post-darwinism has been the application of genetics to the field.  When scientists studied genetics, they found mobile elements, HERV, that had the real possability to effect large change in organisms over a short amount of time.  Some scientists have compared the driving force behind this process to a feedback loop constantly monitoring itself.  Others say that this is just another form of "the man behind the curtain".  Regardless of the arguments, horizontal transmission of HERV does explain things like sub-speciation...data is accumulating.



Which is essentially what I said before (although you certainly seem to be more knowledgeable of the particulars than I). Namely, that the principal reason post-Darwinism seems to be a minority is because of its youth (all of 20 years). As data continues to accumulate over the coming years, I'd expect to see something of a paradigm shift in biological principles.

In a very real way, post-Darwinism seems to correlate with the development of post-formal cognitive research. Formal-operational cognition (much like traditional neo-Darwinism) assumes a relatively small number of broad, all-encompassing principles, linear causal relationships, logical absolutism, and related structures. Post-formal cognition, by contrast, orients toward what Ken Wilber called 'network-logic', embraces relativistic and dialectical thinking, understands much of what we call 'truth' is bound within certain circumstantial contexts, and realizes causal relationships often resemble nets or lattices more than they do straight lines.

I find much of these correlational developments in different fields to be fascinating. Post-formal cognition and multiple intelligences theory in psychology, post-Darwinism in biology, systems theory in ecology, M-theory in physics, and post-modernism in philosophy all seem to share broad, correlating principles (often such ideas as hiearchical novel emergence, network systems, dialectical co-development, relativistic and contextual logic, and so on).

Very fascinating.


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 3, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Not to go off-topic here, but I agree with this assessment 100%.
> 
> One of the general misunderstandings many people (including a good number of scientists themselves) have about the scientific method is that it can only be applied to study physical or 'naturalistic' phenomena. This is flatly untrue.
> 
> ...


"Hard" science would dislike that statement. They also dislike the term "social science", because there is generally nothing truly scientific about it, if you use the basest version of what the scientific process is. There is no such thing as true reproducability when dealing with humans. Put the same man in the same circumstances he may react quite differently. Too many variables not even dependant on your expirement (did it rain yesterday, did his mother die a month ago, did his g/f leave him, did he have a nice lunch, ect).

A fossil can not be repeated. Multiple finds can exist, I agree with that, but much of the evolutionary tree is based of single fossils, fragments of bones (particularly in the case of man).

MrH


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 3, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> "Hard" science would dislike that statement. They also dislike the term "social science", because there is generally nothing truly scientific about it, if you use the basest version of what the scientific process is. There is no such thing as true reproducability when dealing with humans. Put the same man in the same circumstances he may react quite differently. Too many variables not even dependant on your expirement (did it rain yesterday, did his mother die a month ago, did his g/f leave him, did he have a nice lunch, ect).


This does not mean that the social sciences can turn out meaningful predictions.  It just means that the statistical mathematics used to show significance are more complex...



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> A fossil can not be repeated. Multiple finds can exist, I agree with that, but much of the evolutionary tree is based of single fossils, fragments of bones (particularly in the case of man).


A single fossil is never enough to alter what is known as "the fossil record".  Independent verification is accomplished by finding other specimens.  Only when this occurs do serious paleontologists take certain findings seriously.  Often, this can take years of work and tons of laborious labor...ie lots of grubbing in the dirt.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 3, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> True, but pointing out that the do exist raises interesting questions about how well some post-darwinian theories explain what is actually found in nature.  The existance of transition fossils seems to indicate a greater amount of time then some post-darwinians theories would account.



The post-Darwinian theories I have come across do not make the assertion that there is some singular mechanism to replace natural selection as an explanatory principle. Rather, the overall attitude seems to be one that there are several (perhaps dozens) of mechanisms at work, of which Darwin's natural selection and sexual selection are but two. 

The general critique, however, does seem to gravitate around natural selection being an inadequate explanation for macroevolution and speciation. However, this doesn't necessarily preclude the existence of transitional forms, as several additional mechanisms are argued by varying theorists (some of which would result in gradual change and some of which would not).

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 3, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> "Hard" science would dislike that statement. They also dislike the term "social science", because there is generally nothing truly scientific about it, if you use the basest version of what the scientific process is.



It is precisely such academic hubris and self-confirming biases that science works to overcome. More often than not, many scientists (especially the "hard" scientists) collapse the scientific method with philosophies like naturalism and materialism. Their concerns are primarily ideological, not methodological.

There is no such thing as a "basest version" of the scientific method. The scientific method is a process of injunction or social practice which reveals datum or information of any kind, and which is subsequently subject to falsification or verification. In other words, if somebody else can hypothetically do what you did to find out what you did, then its science.



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as true reproducability when dealing with humans. Put the same man in the same circumstances he may react quite differently. Too many variables not even dependant on your expirement (did it rain yesterday, did his mother die a month ago, did his g/f leave him, did he have a nice lunch, ect).



No offense, but its fairly obvious your actual experience in the "social sciences" is pretty close to nil. 

In psychology alone (which, depending on which sub-discipline you are referring to, may or may not fall under "social science"), there are a rather hefty number of experimental paradigms, of which your rather poor within-subjects design example is one. Depending on what it is you're attempting to study, any number of paradigms could be efficacious. In fact, I can't think of any study worth its salt that doesn't engage in _multiple_ experimental procedures (often with different samples) to acquire data.

And, like upnorthkyosa pointed out, this isn't even getting into the statistical analysis and subsequent inferential interpretation of the data. That's a whole damn science in and of itself.

I should also point out that, based on the reasoning you used above, there is no "true reproducability" among _any_ complex animal. Truth be told, even the same micro-organism might not react the same way in the same circumstances (which would be a poor experimental design as that organism has already experienced an identical stimulus). Its essentially a non-argument.

Replication, in science, refers to experimental paradigms. It does not refer to results among the exact same subjects. In fact, you really shouldn't be using the same subjects over and over again. Its poor design.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 3, 2005)

Now on to some links of interest to the discussion.

- The following is from a Metanexus Institute discussion entitled Human Creativity and Evolutionary Discontinuity Revisited.

- The following is a paper entitled Outlines For A Post-Darwinian Biology

- The following is from the e-book _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World_ entitled Chapter 19: Postdarwinism.

- The following is a paper entitled Organisms can be proud to have been their own designers.

Enjoy.  :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 3, 2005)

One thing that strikes me about Post-Darwinism is that so much of it seems to be about retooling the idea of "natural selection". 

Classical natural selection stated that the environment selected certain organisms who were the best adapted. This caused small changes in the morphology of populations. Over time, these small changes built up and eventually turned into big changes. 

When Eldridge and Gould published their theory of pucntuated equilibria in 1973, the paradigm was challenged. They said that constant change was not observed in the fossil record. Rather, great amounts of change over short periods of time rightly described the data. "Natural selection" wasn't really addressed here, only the time component.

Now, "natural selection" is being addressed. Post Darwinism, IMO, is about asking what exactly happens with "natural selection." Is it a singular phenomenon or is it composed of many mechanisms genomic change. Either way, the simple explanation presented in classical Darwinism still holds...the environment selects individuals that are best adapted.

Deviations exist. For instance, one theory I read about stated that the genome selected traits to fit the environment via a feedback loop. "It" accomplished this by horizontally transmitting endogenic retroviruses formed from junk DNA. This transmission of traits incorporated new DNA into a "host" and the subsequent morphologic was expressed vertically. Ultimately, this would result in the creation of not only genetic/phylogenic diversity, but speciation.


----------



## goshawk (Sep 3, 2005)

Loki said:
			
		

> *puts down bucket of feces*
> 
> Damnit goshawk... do you have any idea the amount of monet I spent on laxitives?


Oops. Sorry 'bout that. ::grin:: I guess you'll just have to decide to evolve yourself into a better money-maker, huh? 

Oh wait, that's impossible, ergo evolution is phony, PHONY I tell you! We should all just sit down and read Genesis. (I've actually had this argument directed at me, once.)

And yeah, thanks. I knew there was a more interesting example of redundant traits than back-and-shoulder issues, but I couldn't for the life of me remember.


----------



## goshawk (Sep 3, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> Well, that and the fact that incest is, you know...yucky.


::grin:: Probably because those with the tendency to want to make it with their sister or brother got bred out of existence thanks to those self-same mutations, so all we have left are those who wrinkle their noses at the thought.

...Well, _mostly_ what we have left are those who wrinkle their noses at the thought. =P


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 6, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as a "basest version" of the scientific method. The scientific method is a process of injunction or social practice which reveals datum or information of any kind, and which is subsequently subject to falsification or verification. In other words, if somebody else can hypothetically do what you did to find out what you did, then its science.


For clarity, lets look at a nice definition of the scientific method:

_The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this: _



_1. Observe some aspect of the universe. _
_2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. _
_3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. _
_4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. _
_5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation._
So, according the last step, repeatability is an important step. Some fun expirements with magnetic monopoles that was quite entertaining. They predicted an event that would statistically happen once during the lifetime of the universe. Low and behold, they were able to detect it! Was this science? By what I refer to as the basest version of the scientific method, no. No possible (or at least predicted) repeatability. My definition of basest version is how strictly you interpret the method. Lets look at why I think you might not be able to reproduce using psychology.

Lets say some traumatic event occurs, someone gets fired from their job. How does this person deal with the situation? What types of emotions? As with all humans, we have alot of data that influences our reaction, ranging from current financial status (have cash handy?), family status, job history (been fired before? first job?), age, education, current job market, family history (dad unemployed alot? parents teach you how to deal with harsh events? poor growing up? family always in debt?), current needs (wife need alot of cash to spoil? just bought a new car/house? other debt? have kids?), job fired from (CEO of big company? McD's?). This is a short list  Needless to say, many things influence how we react to a unique situation. So, can there -ever- be true reproducibility? Can you ever have a man in the same situation, dealing with the same circumstances? Want to make some general statements? He will be sad? Not always. Maybe a bad circumstance in past job. So, just with this circumstance, unless you gather alot of external data and learn alot about him personally, it would be difficult to make specific statements about how he would deal with the event. If you chose to make general statements, it seems alot less like a science. It would be sort of like Newton stating the Law of Gravity like "stuff falls down most of the time".

Read below regarding measurables...


Here is a good definition of Theory:

_In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy sort of fact and a hypothesis is often used as a fancy synonym to `guess'. But to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones._




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> No offense, but its fairly obvious your actual experience in the "social sciences" is pretty close to nil.
> 
> In psychology alone (which, depending on which sub-discipline you are referring to, may or may not fall under "social science"), there are a rather hefty number of experimental paradigms, of which your rather poor within-subjects design example is one. Depending on what it is you're attempting to study, any number of paradigms could be efficacious. In fact, I can't think of any study worth its salt that doesn't engage in _multiple_ experimental procedures (often with different samples) to acquire data.
> 
> ...


Almost all of hard science deals heavily w/ statistics, so thats a moot point.

Replication with same subjects is indeed poor design. Allow me to expain part of where we will differ. How do you measure some psycological or social trait? Lets look at one of my personal examples. Went to the hospital a few years ago with some pain. Doctor asked "On a scale of 1 to 10, how bad is your pain with 10 being the worst". Is this not totally subjective? What feels like an 8? What feels like a 2? Would a 2 for you be a 2 for me? Its needed for the doctor, I understand that, but the "measurement" of pain in this instance is quite subjective. Can you call something that requires answers that are subjective a science? All one can measure is often what someone says. As humans, we have the ability to lie (protection of loved ones, embarassment, forgetting, repression). So, you ask someone "how do you feel" after some traumatic event, will you get an honest answer? Can you? You need a measurable in order to use statistics, so are these measurables often subjective by nature? From personal observations, the way you ask a question or even the time you ask a question can prompt a quite different response. Would you qualify this as a scientific process? What would you define as a consistent measurable and how could you possibly obtain one? IMHO, it would need to be almost purely biological, since as humans we can not be totally objective (at least IMO). At that point, we start leaving social sciences, and start approaching biology. As with many sciences and other fields, the lines have started to get fuzzy. Makes definitions a bit harder, but thats fine 

We will differ on definition on whats a science. Thats fine. Won't matter with regards to our careers... Just agree to disagree 

In any regards, macro-evolution (the point of this post?) lacks repeatability. It seems to fit the definition of Theory posted above. Smaller aspects can be analyzed directly, and I've worked with some organisms where micro-evolution and even some macro trait evolution can be directly observed. Evolution starts having problems when discussing origins. There are a few other sticking points. I'd be much more interested in going along that line of discussion than social sciences. And no, my experience w/ social sciences is not nil. My exposure to the field has been mostly negative, at least with regard to how I view the field. Thats for a different discussion, with this one trying to stick with the theory of evolution. If you want, we can start another thread to get into that one.

MrH


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 6, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> For clarity, lets look at a nice definition of the scientific method:
> 
> _The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this: _
> 
> ...


Your definition of the scientific method is interesting, to say the least. I don't think any scientist would claim the 'invent' anything. 

Try this:

In an amicus curiae to the United States Supreme Court for Edwards v Aguillard (1986), a diverse group of scientists, for a short time, managed to agree upon a definition of what the nature of science includes.
"Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena.

The grist for the mill of scientific inquiry is an ever increasing body of observations that give information about underlying 'facts'. Facts are the properties of natural phenomena. The scientific method invovles the rigorous, methodical testing of principles that ight present a natural explaination for those facts. 

An explanatory principle is not to be confused with the data it seeks to explain. 

An explanatory principle that by its nature cannont be tested is outside the realm of science."
​Also, your step 5, which says 'no discrepencies', is no where near what science is about. Science is not the attempt to prove a theory. Science is about defining what takes place in the world. If a theory fails, scientists learn and move forward.


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 6, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Your definition of the scientific method is interesting, to say the least. I don't think any scientist would claim the 'invent' anything.


Not my definition, just one I found. Has the basic merits of what the scientific method is. If you want to quibble over specific verbage, thats fine.

Scientist do in fact invent thing, or at least as far as we can observe. check out the periodic table. Many of the elements toward the end are not naturally occuring, at least to our knowledge. Many chemical compounds have been invented that have not been observed natually. Guess it depends on what you mean by invent, but thats another topic. The verbage used is not dealing with "inventing things" though, just devising a hypothesis. A scientist does this all the time.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Try this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice definition, and I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. They do not define the scientific method though, rather what science is.

The "no discrepencies" comment... your statement seems mildly contradictory. Yes, science attempts to define what takes place in the world, and they do so by formulating a theory (hypothesis) and attempting to prove/disprove. If you dislike the term "no discrepencies", then when would a theory ever fail? You need the capability of disproving a theory, otherwise the whole process is pointless. The discrepencies are the basis of what moves science forward and keep it interesting IMO. btw, I'm coming from more of a physical scientist point of view.


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 6, 2005)

Had another comment related to the last post, with regards to "Invention". Over the past decade or so, many novel genes have been added to various crops. Most of Europe has banned their consumption/import, and the release of some organisms into nature has been a hot topic of debate.

Do you consider this "evolution"? If so, what do you think of man originated evolution? 1000 years down the road, do you think we will have dramatically altered the biosphere?

MrH


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 6, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> In any regards, macro-evolution (the point of this post?) lacks repeatability.


You can't test macro-evolution with a test tube, but you can test it with comparitive anatomical studies.  These studies are repeatable in the sense that between different species, the same principles can be applied.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 7, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One thing that strikes me about Post-Darwinism is that so much of it seems to be about retooling the idea of "natural selection".



Based on what I've read from the aforementioned research, I'd have to disagree with this assessment. The post-Darwinists don't seem to be as interested in redefining natural selection as subsuming it within a broader theoretical context. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Classical natural selection stated that the environment selected certain organisms who were the best adapted. This caused small changes in the morphology of populations. Over time, these small changes built up and eventually turned into big changes.



My understanding of traditional neo-Darwinism is that random genetic variations (i.e., mutations) is what causes incremental changes in a species over time. Natural selection merely 'eliminates' the variations that are less adapted for a given environment, thereby ensuring the better adapted variations will be the ones that contribute to a species' morphology.

Post-Darwinism seems to be challenging the assumption that these gradual incremental variations can lead to speciation, instead offering alternative explanations (such as self-organization theories). Natural selection itself, however, never seems to be challenged as an explanation for which genetic variations of a given evolved structure will be passed on.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> When Eldridge and Gould published their theory of pucntuated equilibria in 1973, the paradigm was challenged. They said that constant change was not observed in the fossil record. Rather, great amounts of change over short periods of time rightly described the data. "Natural selection" wasn't really addressed here, only the time component.



Ok.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Now, "natural selection" is being addressed. Post Darwinism, IMO, is about asking what exactly happens with "natural selection." Is it a singular phenomenon or is it composed of many mechanisms genomic change.



I think you're meaning "random variation" here, not "natural selection". 

Natural selection describes the selection pressures the environment presents toward any given evolved structure (and therefore tells us the likelihood of it surviving in that environment). It doesn't tell us anything about how that structure evolved in the first place.

Random genetic mutation is the traditional explanation for how newly evolved structures are "created" (pardon the pun). However, the post-Darwinists challenge this explanation (and rightfully so). 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Either way, the simple explanation presented in classical Darwinism still holds...the environment selects individuals that are best adapted.



Post-Darwinism, from as far as I can tell, does not challenge the validity of natural selection as an explanatory principle for adaptive inheritance.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> For instance, one theory I read about stated that the genome selected traits to fit the environment via a feedback loop. "It" accomplished this by horizontally transmitting endogenic retroviruses formed from junk DNA. This transmission of traits incorporated new DNA into a "host" and the subsequent morphologic was expressed vertically. Ultimately, this would result in the creation of not only genetic/phylogenic diversity, but speciation.



Yup, pretty much. 

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 7, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> In any regards, macro-evolution (the point of this post?) lacks repeatability.



So, if I understand you correctly, you're complaining that speciation can't be "forced" or "controlled" in a formal laboratory setting? No offense... but, well, duh.

Go with Upnorthkyosa on this one. Just because something can't be done in a test tube doesn't mean it can't be replicated. Replicability in science refers to _methodological_ replicability (i.e., if I follow the same procedure you did, I should come across the same or extremely similar results). 

It doesn't mean you can "force" whatever phenomena you want to happen in a lab -- and, if it can't be done in such a way, then whoops! Bad science!

By your criteria, the research of paleontology or history as a whole can't be "replicated" either. This will come as news to most paleontologists and historians, of course.



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> Evolution starts having problems when discussing origins. There are a few other sticking points.



Post-Darwinist research is addressing many of these objections, which have historically been used as political weapons by proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design to push their respective agendas.

To use but one example, Sheldrake gave arguments concerning how the statistical improbability of certain evolutionary emergents (including the earliest single-celled organisms) is more or less negated when you give up a paradigm of random variation to explain all forms of speciation. Self-organization theory and non-random mutations make any such "origins" much more plausible.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 7, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Do you consider this "evolution"?



Yes. 



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> If so, what do you think of man originated evolution?



All "man originated evolution" has its basis in "nature" (or else it wouldn't be possible). The delineation between the two is largely a matter of conceptualization. 



			
				mrhnau said:
			
		

> 1000 years down the road, do you think we will have dramatically altered the biosphere?



Given current trends, yes.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 7, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> If you want, we can start another thread to get into that one.



Continued here.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## mrhnau (Sep 7, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> So, if I understand you correctly, you're complaining that speciation can't be "forced" or "controlled" in a formal laboratory setting? No offense... but, well, duh.


Depends on what is meant by macro I suppose... can certain traits be expressed or repressed? yes. Seen some fascinating work with D. Melanogaster (fruit fly), where they were able to get wings to grow out of their head. Strange, but interesting. Insertion of genes across species could be considered macro. Many things are bioenginered now. Guess I'm thinking more along the lines of turning a chicken into a cow, along that lines 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> It doesn't mean you can "force" whatever phenomena you want to happen in a lab -- and, if it can't be done in such a way, then whoops! Bad science!
> 
> By your criteria, the research of paleontology or history as a whole can't be "replicated" either. This will come as news to most paleontologists and historians, of course.


Telling me history is a science now? Whats next? Want Foreign Languages to be science? Literature? Everything? Non-scientific fields should not be held to the Scientific Method.

Is science "forcing"? There is another word for forcing, its called expirementation. Can't explore meta-evolution on a large scale, so you play with it on a small scale (wings out of the head). You can't start a new star on Earth, so you work with particle physics on an accelerator, and see what happens on a small scale. you "force" things. Can all things be treated this way? Doubtful. However, you learn much about the whole by studying the pieces in great detail.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> To use but one example, Sheldrake gave arguments concerning how the statistical improbability of certain evolutionary emergents (including the earliest single-celled organisms) is more or less negated when you give up a paradigm of random variation to explain all forms of speciation. Self-organization theory and non-random mutations make any such "origins" much more plausible.
> 
> Laterz. :asian:


Some of the problems... how does a permeable membrane spontaneously form? Its pretty much the basis of single cell origin. Needs to be water permeable, but be able to control certain conditions (ion pumps, nutrient passing across barrier, pH gradient, availablity of usable energy). Could such a lipid membrane spontaneously occur? Possibly. At the same time as replication processes emerge? Say a satisfactory membrane emerges. The "cell" would certainly die over time, unless in that time frame a satisfactory replication process is conceived.

Replication process... most evolutionary scientists agree that life started with RNA, not DNA. So, assuming RNA did automatically come about, there needs to be the proper polymerase to replicate. Such a protein/nucleic acid structure needs to be developed somehow, spontaneously? And you get lucky enough for such an apparatus to be developed inside an appropriate single cell organism? Need the apparatus for lipid formation for the new cell, and a method for cell mitosis, otherwise cell death will end the cells existance. Sort of along the lines of sexuality spontaneously emerging. Even the simplest of cells that are non-viral or parasitical are quite complex, and require so many proteins and chemical processes to survive. Another interesting debate going on is the minimal set of genes/proteins required for an organism to remain alive, and at this level, what is considered alive.

This way predates speciation, and gets back to the origin of things. To me, I'm more interested in this angle of evolution. Its something I don't hear alot about. Will evoution solve these problems? perhaps... I'm not aware of much conclusive work along this line. If you are, please share. I'd be interested in reading some of it.

MrH


----------

