BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Laboratory >

Theories On Evolution

  
 
The Photographer in Blowup
21:03 / 17.01.03
Really don't know if this is the right forum to post this - perhaps the Creation or Comic Books would be better.

Now, Darwin maintains that evolution is a step-by-step process, taking millions of years of adaptation for one species to change into another, so that the former species slowly disappears - well, i think that's the best i can sum it up.

Then, Grant Morrison, in the 'E Is For Extinction' storyline, suggested that evolution can sometimes take huge evolutionary jumps in no time and one species will dramatically change into the next step without having to adapt - it's instantaneous or something.

Now, my question is this: is there any grounding for Morrison's evolutionary theory, or did he just make it up? Coincidentally, Greg Bear's Darwin's Radio also makes use of Morrison's theory, which is what made me think about this.

So, is this some new recent theory?
 
 
Lurid Archive
23:11 / 17.01.03
Off the top of my head, and as far as I understand it, evolution can be pretty quick when compared to geological time. Of course, one should be careful not to fall into the trap of assuming that evolution has a goal that it strives towards at a certain pace. So it is possible to get periods of stability.

That said, I think there are competing viewpoints as to the pace of change when it happens. Some believe in spurts of evolution when driven by environmental pressures, whilst others hold in a steadier evolutionary change. However, despite the spats, there is broad agreement that "quick" evolution still takes many generations.

I don't think that there is any reason to believe in evolution that happens all at once - but there are lots of people here who know more about it than me.
 
 
Lurid Archive
23:13 / 17.01.03
Oh. It should probably be a permanent link but the talk origins archive is an excellent resource.
 
 
The Monkey
00:30 / 18.01.03
Morrison and the X-Men schema of evolution echoes the punctuated equilibrium perspective. Sort of...since the X-Men version of evolution (a) suggests a sort of ascent, ie the 'next step/next level' statements and (b) neglects to note that natural selection occurs as adaptation to specific (new) environmental conditions. But that doesn't make for very exciting comic books.

As Lurid said, I think the stickler is remembering the phrase "relative to geological time" when discussing the movements of evolution. By any model, adaptation to the point of speciation (the budding off of a new unit of reproductively-enclosed organisms) to the best of our knowledge still takes many generations.
 
 
A
13:57 / 18.01.03
(nitpicking-)

The whole evolution-periodically-taking-huge-leaps idea was part of the X-Men before Morrison wrote it, although he certainly refined and added to it. Watch the first couple of minutes of the X-Men movie and you'll hear Professor X giving you a rundown of the idea.

(/nitpicking)
 
 
Elbereth
22:43 / 18.01.03
In the nineteen thirties paleontologist Otto Schindewolf suggested the gaps in the fossil record (missing links) were too numerous to be ignored and proposed that evolution took place in great steps to explain this. In 1940 the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt started championing this theory as the hopefull monster theory. He was rightful ridiculed (by both evolutionists and creationists) because this is like suddenly having a teacup poodle give birth to a great dane, and other poodles in the vicinity would have to give birth to great danes to so they could interbreed into a new species becoming in a very short while a new species. Punctuated equilibrium is very similar (and by some peoples accounts similarly ridiculous), but it states that the time it takes is more like a dozen to a hundred generations (a few thousand rather than a few hundred years). it was also supposed to be more like an explosion with multiple new species going off in different than one species evolving into a different one. This is more like many poodles giving birth to a bunch of half breeds and quarter breeds who interbreed eventuallly producing a stable breed over many generations that is the great dane. this is much more likely although th triggering mechanism for these rapid bursts of evolution has not been adequatly explained (sudden climate changes has been suggested but there are many holes in idea)this is similar to the idea of the x-men but they seem to regard all mutations as effects of an "X-gene" even though one gene can hardly be used to explain the difference between the mutation in Beast and that of Jean Grey. it's science fiction so of course it's based on real science with the addition of a new device (the X-gene)to explain away all the things we don't understand.
 
 
Simplist
04:29 / 19.01.03
...seem to regard all mutations as effects of an "X-gene" even though one gene can hardly be used to explain the difference between the mutation in Beast and that of Jean Grey.

In that connection, the idea of homo superior as any kind of unified species has always seemed a little off to me, given the diversity of its alleged membership. I mean, could Beast and Jean even produce offspring together at this point?
 
 
Seth
14:16 / 19.01.03
Here's a link on Hsp90, a chemical which inhibits mutations so that they accumulate in a state of latency until environmental pressures cause levels of the chemical to be reduced. The next generation is then born with numerous (and often extreme mutations) many of which are harmful, some of which may make them better suited to their environment (thanks for the New Scientist coaching, ephemerat!).
 
 
vajramukti
19:45 / 19.01.03
i would suggest the writings of rupert sheldrake. his theories of formative causation hold up fairly well.

natural selection can account for a certain amount of speciation diversity, but macro-scale changes not so well.

it's the old 'half-winged bird thing' a half evolved wing is a survival disadvantage, useless for anything else, especially compared to a better adapted fin, flipper, or foot for that specific purpose. natural selection -should- wipe these mutations out. the same argument applies to various other things.

the only plausable explination is that macro scale changes occur in large numbers, and more or less fully formed, which sheldrake implies emerge from a kind of morphogenic field that exerts a subtle pull on the evolution of life. in the behavioral sphere for instance, as soon a group of monkeys learns a new trick, every other monkey on earth learns it more quickly.
 
 
Lurid Archive
20:05 / 19.01.03
naaahhhh.

Partial sight is better than no sight, partial flight may be better than no flight.

Fully formed advantageous mutations, apart from being theoretically observable, imply a certain calculated element to evolution. Doesn't really hold up without a guiding force, in my view. Which is ok for many, but doesn't work so well in a scientific paradigm. Occam and all that.
 
 
Seth
21:05 / 19.01.03
I'm not so sure. From the link I supplied above, there would seem to be as much probability of useless or detrimental mutation as useful ones. The better adapted being the ones that survive, but that's life: it doesn't necessarily point towards some form of guiding force.
 
 
Lurid Archive
21:22 / 19.01.03
I agree. In fact, detrimental mutations are more likely. Thats mainstream evolution, mate. I was more replying to vajramukti's post and thinking of fully formed evolution, to which standard creationist arguments are more telling.
 
 
vajramukti
21:30 / 19.01.03

when I talk about a 'half wing' I am not talking about partial flight, or even gliding. I am talking about an elongated fragile forelimb that interfieres with quadrapedal movement or flipper driven swimming, but cannot support the animal aerodynamically. this is a detriment, no advantage at all.

and regarding the 'scientific paradigm'... this is really a misuse of the term 'paradigm' as coined in 'the structure of scientific revolutions'.

all properly defined paradigms are by definition 'scientific'. they all demand experimental injunction, verification of evidence, and rejection of invalid claims. I think you are talking about 'rational orthidoxy' which draws it's injunctions and truth claims from linear formal operational consciousness, and seeks no verification in experimental injunctions outside of monological cause and effect.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
15:11 / 23.01.03
I think the difference between the Beast & Jean Grey manifestations of the X-gene are perfectly in line with evolutionary thinking. The gene 'detects' a sudden environmental change and causes mutation. Not 'knowing' the nature of the change or how to deal with it, the gene 'selects' a random set of mutation. It may be that Jean's tele-pathy/kinesis are the 'right' mutation, but if not there's Beast with his whatever-he's-got. Can they mate? I dunno. But they aren't actually different species.

The question, I think, is how and what does the X-gene know?Traditional theory says, I think, that there's no x-gene & speciation isn't guided by any knowledge or 'plan'. Mutation goes on all the time. A sudden environmental change occurs, killing creatures unsuited to the new environment and sparing or favoring those that just happen to have mutations allwoing them to prosper in the new environment. 'Evolution' is after the fact, an animal being a catalogue of a lot of things that have worked in the past. Animals most likely to be favored over the long haul would be those with effective strategies for dealing with change and competition -- enormous broods (rodents), mobility (fish), broad range of diet (roaches), consciousness (humans), etc.

However, the partial wing question bothers me, too (it also bothers me when otherwise rational people dismiss it out of hand). You'd need one character to make an enormous leap and I just don't see it happening without some kind of intent.

Where did the first flying squirrel get the 'idea'? On some level, the squirrel's got to 'say' either, 'how can I get from this tree to that one without crossing the ground underneath?' or 'what can I do with these baggy armpits?' The first squirrel with baggy armpits didn't know he could jump from tree to tree, right? His parents didn't, his friends didn't. Why would he? How would he 'learn' without killing himself?

I think it's reasonable to suppose that there is some guiding principle in evolution, where an animal somehow 'feels around' for advantages. Occam's razor really doesn't account for it.
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:02 / 23.01.03
and regarding the 'scientific paradigm'... this is really a misuse of the term 'paradigm' as coined in 'the structure of scientific revolutions'.

Perhaps, but then I wasn't using it exactly as Kuhn would have. I certainly don't mean "rational orthodoxy" as you've described it, but rather those properties which you say are shared by all "paradigms" (I really think the use of the word "scientific" makes it clearer, which is why I used it in the first place.) Namely, some minimal subset of rationality, tested empirically, subject to replication and falsification and judged against peer review. (Perhaps one should also include some subset of mathematics.)

As for partial wings and partial sight, I'd repeat the answer I gave before. But perhaps I should expand on it. I think the best response I've ever read to this argument is by Dawkins in the Blind Watchmaker. So I'll post a paragraph of that.

What use is half a wing? How did wings get their start? Many animals leap from bough to bough, and sometimes fall to the ground. Especially in a small animal, the whole body surface catches the air and assists the leap, or breaks the fall, by acting as a crude aerofoil. Any tendency to increase the ratio of surface area to weight would help, for example the flaps of skin growing out in the angles of joints. From here, there is a continuous series of gradations to gliding wings, and hence to flapping wings. Obviously, there are distances that could not have been jumped by the smallest animals with proto-wings. Equally obviously, for any degree of smallness or crudeness of ancestral air-catching surfaces, there must be some distance, however short, which can be jumped with the flap and which cannot be jumped without the flap.

I'm not trying to argue by authority, but I do think he says it rather well. Also, Qualyn

However, the partial wing question bothers me, too (it also bothers me when otherwise rational people dismiss it out of hand).

I apologise if my previous answer seemed dismissive, but I think it is a good answer. The brevity reflects the fact that it is also fairly well known - I didn't think it really required explanation. As for a "guiding force", I think that people who've looked at algorithmic complexity and computing will tell you that complex phenomena can occur with simple starting points. Genetic Algorithms are interesting in this regard.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
17:53 / 23.01.03
Okay, but why are these suckers jumping, as opposed to slithering or running or thinking? How are they evolving in a useful direction without getting eaten before they get airborne? Natural selection seems to produce more failures than successes, when that's clearly not what's happened.
 
 
Lurid Archive
18:05 / 23.01.03
Its a good point, but I believe you are thinking about evolution as a process which guarantees the current species makeup that we observe around us. It doesn't.

Okay, but why are these suckers jumping, as opposed to slithering or running or thinking?

Some run, some slither, some think. And some jump. Imagine a world where no small animals were jumping. Then predators who could get the jumpers do badly - and jumping seems like a good strategy again. Also, lots of jumpers could have died out and gone down some other evolutionary path. Some jumpers made it. Thats all.

How are they evolving in a useful direction without getting eaten before they get airborne?

I think I've answered this, but just to reiterate - some do. But I don't think it is so much of a stretch to imagine that in the history of life on earth, at some time, in some place, it would have proved a reasonable strategy. As Dawkins says, lots of animals jump.

Natural selection seems to produce more failures than successes, when that's clearly not what's happened.

Thats not right - natural selection selects the successes. Most things are selected against, however.
 
 
grant
18:24 / 23.01.03
This story, new in Nature, might shed light on the "partial wing" discussion.
It's about a dinosaur-bird from China with four wings, basically.

Let's see if this works:


To me, it looks more like four half-wings, or four three-quarter wings.



Compare that, aerodynamically, with something like this:


(a gliding lizard, Draco volans)

or this:


(a sugarglider, Petaurus breviceps)

or this:


(a human skydiving simulator)

You can kind of see where half-wings might be an advantage if you're only half-flying. Jumping. Gliding. Falling... but slowly.

All it takes is one lucky mutant to use an extra flap of skin, or longer-than-normal scales, or whatever, to jump out of the way of a hungry cat, say, and you've got your advantage. That mutant will survive to breed. And some of its kids will be pretty good at jumping out of the way of the local cats, too. Pretty soon, the cats catch whatever they can and do without what they can't catch - the better jumpers.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
19:37 / 23.01.03
I'm going to try to rephrase this, because it's hard to find language that describes intent without implying some personality behind the intent -- and that's not what I'm trying to do.

I don't mean to offend here, but what you're showing is a lot of machines that work, not the principles behind the machinery. I think there's got to be some calculation behind the development of "one lucky mutant" with "an extra flap of skin, or longer-than-normal scales, or whatever, to jump out of the way of a hungry cat." There's got to be some reaction to environment other than felicity, or the mutant doesn't get the chance to be lucky. The process never starts because the environment has already won. There has to be something that 'thinks' (again, not describing a personality -- eg God or whatever -- just intent) "I'm going to be attacked, here's a way I might escape."
 
 
grant
20:40 / 23.01.03
Well, I think the counterargument goes like this:

For every mutant with an extra flap of skin, there's one with longer, heavier toenails, or a meatier tail, or a malformed eyeball, or brittle legbones... ones that make pretty good snacks for whatever's hunting them.

It all has to do with the frequency of mutations over time.

I'm not entirely sure I buy this, since big numbers (millions of years, billions of individuals) make my head go *ping*, but I think that's what the official story is.
 
 
cusm
20:46 / 23.01.03
Speaking of the half wing thing, Some new ground may have been found on that:

Dial discovered the avian daredevils were using their wings like spoilers on a hot rod to keep their claws attached to 16-foot-high ramps. Even upside down on inclines tilted at 105 degrees -- beyond straight up -- the birds ''cheated'' instead of flying to run up a surface.

Among the offspring of this dinosaur, evolution would have favored the ones that possessed longer feathers, the better to climb steeper tree trunks and escape predators.
 
 
Lurid Archive
08:58 / 24.01.03
Not entirely sure what your difficulty is, Qualyn.

Lots of mutantions are thrown up, the majority of which detrimental. The beneficial ones are more likely to survive and reproduce than the average member of the species. Hence those lucky enough to get this beneficial development are more likely to pass their genes on to the next generation who are then more likely to have a greater prevalence of the beneficial characteristic. And so on.

Yes, it can go wrong and benficial mutations can die out. And some "beneficial" mutations might help reproductive success but also be a disadvantage in terms of survival - think of the peacocks tail. But, as grant says, in a game of huge numbers (in which almost everyone has bad intuition) these differences can make themselves felt.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
20:48 / 24.01.03
I guess my problem could be grant-like -- I just can't wrap my head around the big numbers -- but I don't see such good design happening accidentally. I feel like there's an interaction going on that, while not necessarily conscious, is driven by more than chance.
 
 
Enamon
05:49 / 25.01.03
All these mutations would have to occur in the err... sex parts I think. The glands I believe. It's been a while since i learned all this. So it doesnt matter if you have a mutation. It only matters if your balls have the mutation. Or so common scientific consensus currently states. However, wasn't there an experiment with fruit flies done not too long ago which showed that the fruit flies developed off spring that were much better suited to a changed environmental condition that the scientists induced? Sorry if I'm not clear right now it's late and my mind isnt working too good. But what I am trying to say is that perhaps your brain or your body or both are able to influence the genetics of your sperm or ova.
 
 
Elbereth
09:05 / 25.01.03
First: Did everyone just miss expressionless's Hsp90 link ?!!!?! That was the most important piece of scientific work regarding evolution that I've heard in years. Not only do we have a feasable explanation for how the hopefulmonster/punctuated equilibrium theories work we have the means to do working laboratory experiments involving evolving new traits in species. I mean in a few generations with that stuff you could hypothetically Evolve a New Species!! not to mention possible use on humans. Dr. Frankenstein, but with more diversity, I love it!!!
Second: the big number thing, they are really, really, big numbers. in school(christian fundamentalist school) my teacher (a mathematician not a biologist) had this formula for the probability of random mutation that proved that it would take more than the calculated age of the universe to successfully mutate into another species by random chance. it was something like 3billion genes in a person, 10% differentiation between species, approx twenty base pairs in a gene four possible base pairs. It added up to around 1:10^23 I think (improbable odds being 1:10^20? I'll get exact quotes on it). His math didn't take everything into account but i remember the quantity of mutations it would take was utterly ridiculous every single time and he could calculate it based on three different ways. That was his problem with it too. It was just too big.
Third: Yes inheritable mutations must be found in the ova or sperm cells or shortly after conception (but not actually in the balls technically), most often this is done through transposition and other switching of the genetic matter naturally when the cell undergoes mieosis (sp?) the rather than single base pair mutations caused by radiation and such. (if any of my words or ideas are off feel free to tell me, I haven't studied half of this stuff since sixth grade.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:16 / 25.01.03
1. I read expressionless link. Its interesting, but in no way provides an alternative to evolution. Evolution describes the large scale process, Hsp90 might give details about one particular mechanism. I think your reading of it is a little overenthusiastic, Elbereth.

2. This is a well known argument. And I mean this in the nicest possible way, but it is a particularly bad one. Evolution involves random mutation subject to selection under environmental pressures. If you ignore the latter the theory collapses. That tells you nothing about evolution.

Let me use an analogy (also one of Dawkins, I think). Suppose I have a pile of rocks of different sizes and I want to get the smaller ones. To do this I use a sieve.

Now, my movements in using the sieve are random. The rocks that get through may be larger than I intend, and there may be some small rocks that don't get through. The process is random. Yet, if I shake for a bit, I get a pile of sorted rocks.

The criticism of large numbers in evolution is like saying that the sieve can't work because choosing the rocks at "random" makes it very unlikely that I'll get a selection of small rocks.

3. genetic code, and therefore beneficial mutation, is carried by all cells in the body. Therefore a successful mutant has a chance, via sperm or ova, of passing on the genes that make the advantage work. Its random. Like the sieve.
 
 
Elbereth
06:06 / 26.01.03
just clarifying myself. The Hsp90 comment was not supposed to be an alternative to evolution, it is simply a way you could experiment to learn more about evolution and may be a possible explanation for one part of the theory, punctuated equilibrium, because as yat i didn't think that the scientific community had a reason for what triggered large groups of spontaneous mutations comming up semmingly at random.
the big numbers thing was just saying yeah there are big numbers involved, really big ones. i said that his math didn't take everything into account but that wasn't the point. the point was it's a lot to wrap your head around. and my third comment was just stating how genetics works, only mutations in the ova and sperm cells and shortly after conception are inheritable meaning can be passed down. Mutations in them occur mainly but not exclusively from translocation (not the same type of mutation that people normally think of when they think of mutation). i have no idea what you are arguing. Are we arguing? i didnt mean to sound argumentative.
last comment: this has no bearing on anything else but dawkins analogy is a logical fallacy, mutations are not rocks and the seive is not natural selection, it is a machine designed to sort rocks according to size leaving you with the smaller rocks. The argument (random chance doesn't take into account natural selection) is actually a good one.
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:57 / 26.01.03
Elbereth, I think that some people are interested in hearing a pro-evolutionist rebuttal to "your" big numbers argument. I did, perhaps incorrectly, assume that you were showing sympathy with...something.

As for Dawkins analogy, I don't think it is right to call it a logical fallacy. Its an analogy - pretty explicitly. It either works for you or it doesn't, but I think the parallels are clear.
 
  
Add Your Reply