Its counterintuitive – Dawkins

_{David L. Hagen

April 7, 2016

Atheism, Eyes Rolling, Origin Of Life, rhetoric}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Of course, its counter intuitive you can get something from nothing. Of course common sense doesn’t allow you to get something for nothing! That’s why its interesting. Its got to be interesting to give rise to the universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe. You can dispute what is meant by nothing, but whatever it is, it is very very simple . . . (laughter) Why is that funny?

Bishop Thug Lyfe

Well I think it is a bit funny to try to define nothing!

Laughter – the best medicine for Dawkins!

Link: https://www.facebook.com/1057346700949990/videos/1223907387627253/

Comments

Origenes: Unless you are willing to argue that chemists hold that a governing principle precisely selects particular H atoms to combine with a particular O atom (see #73), you are not making a point. Of course the point was made. You said self-assembly renders a governing principle redundant. The counterexample is chemistry. Furthermore, positing gemmules directly contradicts the claim that Darwin thought the cell was not complex. Finally, you haven't shown that Pangenesis is absurd, rather than simply wrong.Zachriel_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PST}

Goodusername: Tell that to chemists.
Unless you are willing to argue that chemists hold that a governing principle precisely selects particular H atoms to combine with a particular O atom (see #73), you are not making a point.
Goodusername: Also try telling chemists that because atoms and molecules are “totally diffused” in a liquid that there can be no order in the composition of the molecules they form.
Unless you are willing to argue that the kind of order in composition you are talking about is comparable to being lined-up wrt a body plan, as should be the case with gemmules (see #73), you are not making a point.
Goodusername: The quote at the bottom of #61 is addressing those who may object that so many gemmules could possibly be produced. Darwin answers that many animals can produce millions, or even tens of millions, of eggs, and plants produce millions of seeds, so the production of even more gemmules, which are vastly smaller, shouldn’t be seen as insurmountable. It has nothing to do with how gemmules are arranged in an aggregate.
The gemmules must be arranged "in some special manner", and "apparently in small quantity" because they must be "contained within the smallest egg or seed". How to reconcile the enormous quantity of gemmules and the smallness of eggs and seed is what Darwin is worried about when he writes “What determines the aggregation of the gemmules within the sexual organs we do not in the least know.” IOWs how can the aggregation be so small? Notice that he is not worried about "buds", — which he continually mentions, but not here — apparently because he holds them to be big enough.
Darwin: As each unit, or group of similar units throughout the body, casts off its gemmules, and as all are contained within the smallest egg or seed, and within each spermatozoon or pollen-grain, their number and minuteness must be something inconceivable. I shall hereafter recur to this objection, which at first appears so formidable (...) a single Ascaris about 64,000,000 eggs, and a single Orchidaceous plant probably as many million seeds (...) when we have to deal with numbers such as these, which the human intellect cannot grasp, there is no good reason for rejecting our present hypothesis on account of the assumed existence of cell-gemmules a few thousand times more numerous.
When organisms evolve and acquire modifications, is that because of a change in a mechanism that governs the gemmules? Not according to Darwin's hypothesis. Typically also here there is no need for such a governing mechanism. Modifications are acquired when modified gemmules become "sufficiently numerous to overpower and supplant the old gemmules."
Darwin: It is generally, perhaps always, necessary that an organism should be exposed during several generations to changed conditions or habits, in order that any modification in the structure of the offspring should ensue. This may be partly due to the changes not being at first marked enough to catch the attention, but this explanation is insufficient; and I can account for the fact, only by the assumption, which we shall see under the head of reversion is strongly supported, that gemmules derived from each cell before it had undergone the least modification are transmitted in large numbers to successive generations, but that the gemmules derived from the same cells after modification, naturally go on increasing under the same favouring conditions, until at last they become sufficiently numerous to overpower and supplant the old gemmules.
Origenes_{April 14, 2016
April
04
Apr
14
14
2016
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PST}

Origenes,
Isn’t that the reason why no one asks: “what is the governing mechanism for the formation of H2O?”
They don’t? That’s a shame. I guess if they don’t it’s because they think they have most of it figured out (at least they think). I’ve spent a lot of time in chem classes learning about the principles that govern whether atoms combine and how they arrange themselves.
Because self-assembly renders a governing principle redundant.
Tell that to chemists. Also try telling chemists that because atoms and molecules are “totally diffused” in a liquid that there can be no order in the composition of the molecules they form. It’s clear from the terms Darwin uses to describe the actions of gemmules that he was thinking of them in terms of chemistry (he even uses the term “atoms” for gemmules on several occasions). For example “mutual affinity” was a very common term at the time to describe the actions of atoms when forming molecules. (Do a google search for chemistry and mutual affinity, and look at the dates for the results).
In the bottom part of post #61 I have argued that this quote does not express the need for a governing mechanism of the type we are discussing. For some unknown reason you are not convinced. I’m content to leave that part of the discussion as it stands.
The quote at the bottom of #61 is addressing those who may object that so many gemmules could possibly be produced. Darwin answers that many animals can produce millions, or even tens of millions, of eggs, and plants produce millions of seeds, so the production of even more gemmules, which are vastly smaller, shouldn’t be seen as insurmountable. It has nothing to do with how gemmules are arranged in an aggregate.goodusername_{April 14, 2016
April
04
Apr
14
14
2016
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PST}

Goodusername:
Origenes: To be clear, the terms Darwin uses wrt the movement of gemmules are “circulate freely throughout the system” and “totally diffused”.
Yes, that’s when the gemmules are transporting. What has that got to do with the arrangement of gemmules in an aggregate, or how aggregates form?
The fact that gemmules are “totally diffused” informs us that at the moment that aggregates are formed there can be no order in the composition of the gemmules involved. At the starting point of aggregation there must be a thorough mixture of gemmules stemming from cells of the brain, liver, skin, bones, nerves and so forth. Moreover, in this incoherent mixture are multiple gemmules from each cell produced “from early youth to old age”. I would say that this has obvious implications for “the arrangement of gemmules in an aggregate, or how aggregates form.” Without a governing principle, it looks like a complete mess.
Goodusername:
Origenes: What Darwin does instead is stating that gemmules form aggregates all by themselves by means of mutual affinity. IOWs, according to Charles, they don’t need any guidance whatsoever.
I don’t know why you put so much importance on the fact that Darwin says that they form into aggregates themselves.
Because self-assembly renders a governing principle redundant.
Goodusername: H and O atoms form into H2O “all by themselves”. Water molecules form snowflakes “all by themselves”. Countless chemicals form from atoms “all by themselves”.
Isn’t that the reason why no one asks: “what is the governing mechanism for the formation of H2O?”
Goodusername: That hardly implies that such molecules/aggregates form randomly – or that there aren’t governing principles – or that their arrangement is random!
Is there anyone who holds that, during the formation of H2O, there is a governing mechanism that selects two particular H atoms to combine with a particular O atom? I would think not. What is random, during the formation of water, is which H atom combines with which O atom. However a precise selection, by a governing mechanism which ‘knows’ the entire body plan, is exactly what we need wrt Pangenesis. Gemmules need to be ‘hand-picked’ and carefully placed, if we want an ordered representation by gemmules of all the cells of the body in the aggregates ("buds" and "germs"). Darwin does not offer such a governing mechanism. Darwin does not express the need for such a mechanism. Darwin states that thoroughly diffused gemmules form aggregates by mutual affinity. Darwin states that, during early development, body parts unite by the affinity they have for each other.
Goodusername: He doesn’t offer a governing mechanism because – as he admits – “we do not in the least know” what it is, which also, btw, implies that such mechanism(s) exist.
In the bottom part of post #61 I have argued that this quote does not express the need for a governing mechanism of the type we are discussing. For some unknown reason you are not convinced. I'm content to leave that part of the discussion as it stands.
Goodusername: It’s like you’re trying to beat a 130 year old dead horse and you’re swinging and missing.
It’s interesting to see what kind of mind produced evolutionary theory. A poorly reasoned attempt of bottom-up explanation and a total disregard for the level of the whole organism — both typical for materialism — are very telling.Origenes_{April 14, 2016
April
04
Apr
14
14
2016
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PST}

Origenes,
To be clear, the terms Darwin uses wrt the movement of gemmules are “circulate freely throughout the system” and “totally diffused”.
Yes, that’s when the gemmules are transporting. What has that got to do with the arrangement of gemmules in an aggregate, or how aggregates form?
I respectfully disagree. Nowhere does Darwin offer a governing mechanism for the arrangement of the aggregates and — far worse — nowhere does he mention that there should be a governing mechanism. What Darwin does instead is stating that gemmules form aggregates all by themselves by means of mutual affinity. IOWs, according to Charles, they don’t need any guidance whatsoever.
He doesn’t offer a governing mechanism because – as he admits – “we do not in the least know” what it is, which also, btw, implies that such mechanism(s) exist. I don’t know why you put so much importance on the fact that Darwin says that they form into aggregates themselves. That doesn’t imply that there aren’t governing principles. That doesn’t imply that the aggregates are random, or form randomly. H and O atoms form into H2O “all by themselves”. Water molecules form snowflakes “all by themselves”. Countless chemicals form from atoms “all by themselves”. That hardly implies that such molecules/aggregates form randomly - or that there aren't governing principles – or that their arrangement is random! It’s like you’re trying to beat a 130 year old dead horse and you’re swinging and missing.goodusername_{April 13, 2016
April
04
Apr
13
13
2016
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PST}

Goodusername: Darwin does say that they spread through the body via diffusion, (…)
To be clear, the terms Darwin uses wrt the movement of gemmules are “circulate freely throughout the system” and “totally diffused”.
Goodusername: (…) but he no where describes the arrangement of the aggregates as random.
I respectfully disagree. Nowhere does Darwin offer a governing mechanism for the arrangement of the aggregates and — far worse — nowhere does he mention that there should be a governing mechanism. What Darwin does instead is stating that gemmules form aggregates all by themselves by means of mutual affinity. IOWs, according to Charles, they don’t need any guidance whatsoever.
Darwin: I assume that the gemmules in their dormant state have a mutual affinity for each other, leading to their aggregation either into buds or into the sexual elements.
Moreover (!), according to Darwin, there is really no need at all for an ordered development. The various body parts, which are more or less autonomous anyway (see paragraph 3 of my post #61), happen to have an affinity for each other during early development.
Darwin: The affinity of various parts of the body for each other during their early development was shown in the last chapter, when discussing the tendency to fusion in homologous parts. This affinity displays itself in the normal fusion of organs which are separate at an early embryonic age, and still more plainly in those marvellous cases of double monsters in which each bone, muscle, vessel, and nerve in the one embryo, blends with the corresponding part in the other.

Goodusername:
Origenes: Randomly arranged aggregates (buds or germs) are not a workable starting position for any conceivable developmental biology.
Putting aside the matter the Darwin never describes the aggregates as random – What importance would the arrangement of the aggregates have for the starting position for developmental biology?
An aggregate with neatly mapped out gemmules, orderly representing all body parts may offer developmental biology something to work with. It may be a basis for a mechanism that explains embryonic development.
Goodusername: The problem with the quantity of gemmules that Darwin brings up is regarding their production.
I may answer your objection another day.Origenes_{April 13, 2016
April
04
Apr
13
13
2016
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PST}

Origenes,
I have provided two arguments:
Darwin does say that they spread through the body via diffusion, but he no where describes the arrangement of the aggregates as random.
Randomly arranged aggregates (buds or germs) are not a workable starting position for any conceivable developmental biology.
Putting aside the matter the Darwin never describes the aggregates as random - What importance would the arrangement of the aggregates have for the starting position for developmental biology?
Darwin (nor I) admits no such thing. Darwin repeatedly states that gemmules aggregate themselves by mutual affinity; see paragraph 2. of my post #61. There is however an unexplained ‘low quantity aggregation’, which I discuss in the last part of post #61.
The problem with the quantity of gemmules that Darwin brings up is regarding their production. "What determines the aggregation of the gemmules within the sexual organs we do not in the least know”. There’s nothing about the quantity of gemmules in or anywhere near that quote. In 19th century British here “determines” could have the meaning of either control/govern or shape/arrange. So he’s saying we don’t know what governs/controls the aggregation of the gemmules, or he may be saying we don’t know how the aggregation is shaped/arranged. Probably both.goodusername_{April 13, 2016
April
04
Apr
13
13
2016
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PST}

Origenes: Not only is there no order in the gemmules position in the aggregates The process by which the gemmules are organized within the reproductive organ is part of development, something about which Darwin said "the whole subject of the development of the various tissues is as yet far from clear."Zachriel_{April 13, 2016
April
04
Apr
13
13
2016
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PST}

Origenes: Given that all these countless gemmules, produced by each cell during all the stages of development, are “thoroughly diffused” and spontaneously (by mutual affinity) form aggregates , one cannot help but envision how some cells are over-represented in the gemmules-aggregates (“buds” or “sperm”) and others are not represented at all. The hypothesis is for a very large number of gemmules, so they would be "super abundant" and then collected in the reproductive organs. Origenes: I insist that once we have the perception of the Earth as free-floating — once we have adequate perception What is that “adequate perception”?Zachriel_{April 13, 2016
April
04
Apr
13
13
2016
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PST}

Goodusername, You asked why the aggregates would be randomly arranged and I said that I provided two arguments; see #64. There is however a third argument as to the chaotic random arrangement of gemmules into aggregates: According to Darwin's hypothesis each cell continually emits gemmules, during its entire life cycle. Moreover all these gemmules are being conserved:
Darwin: Gemmules are supposed to be thrown off by every cell or unit, not only during the adult state, but during all the stages of development. (...) The retention of free and undeveloped gemmules in the same body from early youth to old age may appear improbable, but we should remember how long seeds lie dormant in the earth and buds in the bark of a tree. Their transmission from generation to generation may appear still more improbable; but here again we should remember that many rudimentary and useless organs are transmitted and have been transmitted during an indefinite number of generations. We shall presently see how well the long-continued transmission of undeveloped gemmules explains many facts.
This adds to the picture of utter incoherence, prompted by Darwin's hypothesis. Not only is there no order in the gemmules position in the aggregates, things are even worse: Given that all these countless gemmules, produced by each cell during all the stages of development, are “thoroughly diffused” and spontaneously (by mutual affinity) form aggregates , one cannot help but envision how some cells are over-represented in the gemmules-aggregates ("buds" or "sperm") and others are not represented at all.Origenes_{April 13, 2016
April
04
Apr
13
13
2016
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PST}

Origenes: 1. The positions of the gemmules are as random as they could be. No. They are posited to aggregate in the reproductive organs. Origenes: 2. No governing mechanism that arranges the position of gemmules is offered. That's correct. Origenes: On the contrary, according to Darwin, gemmules aggregate themselves by mutual affinity. It's not contrary, but just another way to state there is an unspecified mechanism involved. If someone notes that blood clots, that doesn't mean they necessarily know the mechanism by which it occurs. Origenes: Randomly arranged aggregates (buds or germs) are not a workable starting position for any conceivable developmental biology. Pangenesis is not a theory of developmental biology, but of heredity. Liver gemmules and brain gemmules and bone gemmules are posited to aggregate in the reproductive organs. How they are then arranged into the new organism is not part of the hypothesis. You do realize that Mendel didn't explain development either?Zachriel_{April 13, 2016
April
04
Apr
13
13
2016
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PST}

Zachriel: you had claimed it was absurd to hypothesize that different cells of the body contribute to the offspring. Origenes: I never made this claim. The claim of Pangenesis is that each organ of the body contributes to the offspring by passing gemmules to the reproductive organs. You claimed Pangenesis is "absurd", so it seemed a reasonable restatement of your view. However, perhaps there is some other reason you think Pangenesis is absurd. You might want to clarify what you consider absurd about Pangenesis. Origenes: I insist that once we have the perception of the Earth as free-floating — once we have adequate perception Once again, what is that “adequate perception”?Zachriel_{April 13, 2016
April
04
Apr
13
13
2016
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PST}

Goodusername: Why would the aggregates be randomly arranged?
I have provided two arguments:
1. The positions of the gemmules are as random as they could be. 2. No governing mechanism that arranges the position of gemmules is offered. On the contrary, according to Darwin, gemmules aggregate themselves by mutual affinity.
* For the Darwin quotes that support my two arguments see my post #61. ----
Goodusername: And why would developmental biology have nothing to work with?
Randomly arranged aggregates (buds or germs) are not a workable starting position for any conceivable developmental biology. -----
Goodusername: How they [gemmules] aggregate however is unknown, as Darwin admits, and you acknowledge he admits.
Darwin (nor I) admits no such thing. Darwin repeatedly states that gemmules aggregate themselves by mutual affinity; see paragraph 2. of my post #61. There is however an unexplained 'low quantity aggregation', which I discuss in the last part of post #61.Origenes_{April 13, 2016
April
04
Apr
13
13
2016
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PST}

Origenes,
Indeed! If the gemmules — each one contains only the instructions to produce one specific type of cell — form randomly arranged aggregates (“buds” and “germs”) then developmental biology would have nothing to work with. This is indeed obvious.
Why would the aggregates be randomly arranged? And why would developmental biology have nothing to work with? And history shows otherwise, to say the least. In the years following the publication of the hypothesis it was the basis for experimentation (Galton, Weismann, De Vries, etc) in the field of heredity and the field finally took off.
No governing mechanism that arranges the position of gemmules is offered. On the contrary, according to Darwin, gemmules aggregate themselves by mutual affinity
Right, as they are traveling through the bodily fluids they are dispersing through the process of diffusion, that is how the gemmules of each type of cell reaches every other part of the body. How they aggregate however is unknown, as Darwin admits, and you acknowledge he admits. Is there a complaint other than Darwin not repeating the obvious enough times? No one disputes that it’s wrong and incomplete, and the hypothesis has bigger problems than what you’ve brought up. I was just curious as to how it was “absurd”. And I still don’t know. Again, is there an alternative hypothesis that would be less "absurd" given what was known at the time?goodusername_{April 13, 2016
April
04
Apr
13
13
2016
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PST}

Zachriel: Rather, you had claimed it was absurd to hypothesize that different cells of the body contribute to the offspring.
I never made this claim.
Zachriel: Saying that such a process would be complex does not make the position absurd.
I never made that claim either. Stop making things up.Origenes_{April 13, 2016
April
04
Apr
13
13
2016
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PST}

Goodusername: Obviously there would need to be layers of complexity governing the movement of the gemmules and the development of the clusters.
Indeed! If the gemmules — each one contains only the instructions to produce one specific type of cell — form randomly arranged aggregates (“buds” and “germs”) then developmental biology would have nothing to work with. This is indeed obvious. However, nowhere in his chapter on Pangenesis does Darwin indicate that he is aware of the apparent need for order and government wrt the position of gemmules. An overview: 1. The positions of the gemmules are as random as they could be.
Darwin: The gemmules in each organism must be thoroughly diffused; nor does this seem improbable considering their minuteness, and the steady circulation of fluids throughout the body. (…) I assume that cells, before their conversion into completely passive or “formed material,” throw off minute granules or atoms [read: gemmules], which circulate freely throughout the system, [Darwin; CHAPTER XXVII. Darwin online]
2. No governing mechanism that arranges the position of gemmules is offered. On the contrary, according to Darwin, gemmules aggregate themselves by mutual affinity:
Darwin: I assume that the gemmules in their dormant state have a mutual affinity for each other, leading to their aggregation either into buds or into the sexual elements. (…) (…) parts would have to throw off atoms or gemmules, which when aggregated by mutual affinity would form either buds or the sexual elements. As soon as the gemmules have aggregated themselves, development apparently commences, (…) The aggregation of gemmules derived from every part of the body, through their mutual affinity, would form buds, (…)
3. Illustrative for Darwin’s disregard for the whole, he continually argues that body parts are autonomous.
Darwin: The cells or units of the body are generally admitted by physiologists to be autonomous, like the buds on a tree, but in a less degree. I go one step further and assume that they throw off reproductive gemmules. Thus an animal does not, as a whole, generate its kind through the sole agency of the reproductive system, but each separate cell generates its kind. (…) This fact well illustrates how independent each structure must be from that which precedes and follows it in the course of development. The Functional Independence of the Elements or Units of the Body.—Physiologists agree that the whole organism consists of a multitude of elemental parts, which are to a great extent independent of each other. Each organ, says Claude Bernard,18 has its proper life, its autonomy; it can develop and reproduce itself independently of the adjoining tissues.
- - In defense of Darwin, Goodusername states:
Goodusername: The countless gummules aren’t random, but behave as if a “little universe.”
Darwin refers to an organism as a “little universe” — he does not refer to the gemmules or their behavior, which he describes as “free” and “thoroughly diffused” ( see 2. above), IOWs random.
Darwin: Each living creature must be looked at as a microcosm—a little universe, (…)

Goodusername: You’ll see that he mentions such problems throughout the text, (…)
Sure Darwin mentions all sorts of problems. However, again, he does not — anywhere — mention the problem of government for gemmules.
Goodusername: (…) “What determines the aggregation of the gemmules within the sexual organs we do not in the least know” [Darwin].
Right! This is, as far as I can see, the one and only line of text that can be used to argue that Darwin is aware of the apparent need for order and government wrt gemmules. Can it indeed be the case that Darwin means to say that the sexual organs are capable of arranging the gemmules in an ordered way and thereby overriding the spontaneous chaotic clustering by mutual affinity (see 2. above)? It seems inconsistent and highly unlikely. What Darwin is talking about here becomes clearer when we read the following:
Darwin: The aggregation of gemmules derived from every part of the body, through their mutual affinity, would form buds, and their aggregation in some special manner, apparently in small quantity, together probably with the presence of gemmules of certain primordial cells, would constitute the sexual elements.
What Darwin is concerned about is the enormous quantities of gemmules that his hypothesis proposes and he holds that these amounts — especially in conjunction with the smallness of germs — makes his hypothesis seem improbable. So my guess is that when he writes “What determines the aggregation of the gemmules (…)” and “apparently in small quantity” he is again concerned about quantities. Here we see Darwin arguing that large numbers do not refute his hypothesis:
The retention of free and undeveloped gemmules in the same body from early youth to old age may appear improbable, (…) As each unit, or group of similar units throughout the body, casts off its gemmules, and as all are contained within the smallest egg or seed, and within each spermatozoon or pollen-grain, their number and minuteness must be something inconceivable. I shall hereafter recur to this objection, which at first appears so formidable; but it may here be remarked that a cod-fish has been found to produce 4,872,000 eggs, a single Ascaris about 64,000,000 eggs, and a single Orchidaceous plant probably as many million seeds.34 In these several cases, the spermatozoa and pollen-grains must exist in considerably larger numbers. Now, when we have to deal with numbers such as these, which the human intellect cannot grasp, there is no good reason for rejecting our present hypothesis on account of the assumed existence of cell-gemmules a few thousand times more numerous.
Origenes_{April 13, 2016
April
04
Apr
13
13
2016
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PST}

Origenes: No really, they do exist. And their name is Zachriel. That is not correct. We never said there wasn't complexity, indeed, it's implicit in our position. Rather, you had claimed it was absurd to hypothesize that different cells of the body contribute to the offspring. Saying that such a process would be complex does not make the position absurd. Mendel posited that genetics was discrete. That the actual molecular basis is complex doesn't mean his position was absurd. Rather, it just means his hypothesis only concerned one aspect of the genetic relationship. Zachriel: Why randomly formed? Why not each part of the body contributing to the whole? Pan-genesis means “whole-birth”. Origenes: See? They don’t get it. You're the one who said the hypothesis was that, in Pangenesis, offspring were randomly formed. That was incorrect. Darwin never posited a mechanism, but the idea is that each part of the body contributes to the whole offspring, a.k.a. "whole-birth". Origenes: And I maintain my assertion that the Pangenesis hypothesis is absurd. You can maintain your assertion, but have yet to show it.Zachriel_{April 13, 2016
April
04
Apr
13
13
2016
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PST}

Origenes,
See? They don’t get it.
I must not either, cause I have no idea what you’re talking about.
On the contrary, Darwin stresses the idea that gemmules are not ordered in any way, they are “free” and “thoroughly diffused”.
Yeah, gemmules means that cells are more complex than we ever envisioned and each are like a little universe… you know… not ordered in any way. (?!)
Nowhere in his chapter on Pangenesis does Darwin mention the problem which we both identify with ease. On the contrary, Darwin stresses the idea that gemmules are not ordered in any way, they are “free” and “thoroughly diffused”.
I’m not sure where you read about pangenesis, but if you’re curious about the hypothesis I’d suggest the original source in Animals and Plants Under Domestication. You’ll see that he mentions such problems throughout the text, “What determines the aggregation of the gemmules within the sexual organs we do not in the least know”.
Yeah sure, what’s the problem?
The problem? Isn’t it obvious? There are unknowns every step of the way, as highlighted by Darwin throughout the text. Darwin realized that there were too many problems and unknowns to present his idea as an actual theory, which is why he presented it as a “provisional hypothesis”. (He almost didn’t present the idea at all – Huxley had to talk him into it.) Of course, all of the unknowns is precisely why he wanted to present a hypothesis - he was trying to start a whole new field of study. And it worked.goodusername_{April 12, 2016
April
04
Apr
12
12
2016
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PST}

Goodusername: Obviously there would need to be layers of complexity governing the movement of the gemmules and the development of the clusters.
On this insight we are in agreement. However there is a group of persons on this forum who do not agree.
Goodusername: I doubt that.
No really, they do exist. And their name is Zachriel.
Zachriel:
Origenes: What would developmental biology look like given randomly formed clusters of gemmules, which can contain nothing other than an incoherent mixture of information stemming from all directions? Is Pangenesis not in an obvious need for a mechanism that assigns the proper place in the aggregate to each and every gemmule?
Why randomly formed? Why not each part of the body contributing to the whole? Pan-genesis means “whole-birth”.
See? They don't get it. - - - There is however another person who doesn't get it... Nowhere in his chapter on Pangenesis does Darwin mention the problem which we both identify with ease. On the contrary, Darwin stresses the idea that gemmules are not ordered in any way, they are "free" and "thoroughly diffused".
The gemmules in each organism must be thoroughly diffused; nor does this seem improbable considering their minuteness, and the steady circulation of fluids throughout the body. (...) I assume that cells, before their conversion into completely passive or "formed material," throw off minute granules or atoms [read: gemmules], which circulate freely throughout the system, [Darwin]
Nowhere does Darwin stop and say that there (obviously) should be "layers of complexity governing the movement of the gemmules and the development of the clusters". No, he envisions gemmules, thoroughly diffused and moving freely in the body, which form aggregates through "mutual affinity", after all " in all ordinary cases of sexual reproduction the male and female elements have a mutual affinity for each other", next they reach the reproductive organs or form buds and "development apparently commences". Yeah sure, what's the problem? I hate to say it but Darwin and Zachriel are kindred spirits. And I maintain my assertion that the Pangenesis hypothesis is absurd.Origenes_{April 12, 2016
April
04
Apr
12
12
2016
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PST}

Origenes,
We seem to be in agreement. That’s why I wrote: “Is Pangenesis not in an obvious need for a mechanism that assigns the proper place in the aggregate to each and every gemmule?”.
I’m sure Darwin would be in agreement on that as well. It was very incomplete and speculative, as Darwin himself said numerous times in numerous ways.
There are ppl on this forum who do not understand something basic as this….
I doubt that. Who doesn’t realize that it was wrong and woefully incomplete? In fact, pangenesis is often ridiculed by people from all sides, which I think is kind of a shame cause it was remarkably insightful for its time.
If Darwin was aware of this obvious need for “governing the movement of the gemmules and the development of the clusters” and offered a mechanism of some sort then I was mistaken. However I haven’t noticed such awareness. All I found was ….
He didn’t offer a mechanism for how gemmules clustered - my guess is that’s because he had no idea of how that occured. Do you think there’s some other reason? I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at. Pangenesis left open many questions and was highly speculative. It was a hypothesis (Darwin didn’t even call it a theory) in a field that can hardly be said to even exist yet. Again, that's why Darwin wanted to get the ball rolling of people thinking and experimenting in this area. Hardly anyone was doing any work at all in that field at the time. That's why Darwin was so admired by many of the early geneticists, such as De Vries, cause they recognized him as a founder of the field. It's no coincidence that "genes" and "genetics" etc derive from the name of Darwin's hypothesis - as problematic and incomplete as it was.goodusername_{April 12, 2016
April
04
Apr
12
12
2016
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PST}

Goodusername,
Goodusername: Obviously there would need to be layers of complexity governing the movement of the gemmules and the development of the clusters.
We seem to be in agreement. That's why I wrote: "Is Pangenesis not in an obvious need for a mechanism that assigns the proper place in the aggregate to each and every gemmule?". Our agreement is actually rather pleasant. There are ppl on this forum who do not understand something basic as this.... If Darwin was aware of this obvious need for "governing the movement of the gemmules and the development of the clusters" and offered a mechanism of some sort then I was mistaken. However I haven't noticed such awareness. All I found was ....
Darwin: Lastly, I assume that the gemmules in their dormant state have a mutual affinity for each other, leading to their aggregation either into buds or into the sexual elements. (…) The aggregation of gemmules derived from every part of the body, through their mutual affinity, would form buds, and their aggregation in some special manner, apparently in small quantity, together probably with the presence of gemmules of certain primordial cells, would constitute the sexual elements.
... which obviously does not include an attempt to offer a governing mechanism. Maybe you can point me to the relevant part of his theory?Origenes_{April 12, 2016
April
04
Apr
12
12
2016
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PST}

Origenes,
All the cells of the body emit gemmules. Gemmules have a “mutual affinity for each other, leading to their aggregation” into germs. Now an obvious question presents itself: how could an aggregate of gemmules, stemming from all the cells of the body, form a coherent set of instruction wrt the embryonal development? What would developmental biology look like given randomly formed clusters of gemmules, which can contain nothing other than an incoherent mixture of information stemming from all directions? Is Pangenesis not in an obvious need for a mechanism that assigns the proper place in the aggregate to each and every gemmule?
There were things that Darwin believed that the hypothesis had to be consistent with. Each type of body part produces cells of a certain type (liver, heart, kidney, etc), but somehow each part of the body (particularly the gametes) also has the information for producing the whole body. So either each part of the body produces cells that have only the instructions to produce that part of the body, but also somehow gains the information for producing the other body parts; or, each cell of the body has the same set of instructions to begin with, yet, somehow knows to only use a sub-set of the instructions in order produce cells of a certain type. How is the former any more absurd than the latter (except in light of relatively recent discoveries)? I'm not sure why you say that a cluster of gemmules would be randomly formed and contain an incoherent mixture of information. Obviously there would need to be layers of complexity governing the movement of the gemmules and the development of the clusters. Darwin recognized this which is why says that this hypothesis greatly increases our view of the level of complexity of the cell. The countless gummules aren't random, but behave as if a "little universe." Is that why the hypothesis is absurd - because of the level of complexity it envisions? Because that's the complete opposite of your criticism of Darwin at the start of the convo. The alternative explanation, that each part the body has the same set of instructions, yet each somehow only produces cells of a certain type, also required levels of complexity to govern how each cell somehow knows to only execute certain sets of instructions. We're still trying to figure out exactly how that happens. Darwin was trying to come up with solutions to problems that most people never imagined. As mentioned, that was the point of the hypothesis - to get others to think about such issues and do experimenting:
I am aware that my view is merely a provisional hypothesis or speculation; but until a better one be advanced, it may be serviceable by bringing together a multitude of facts which are at present left disconnected by any efficient cause. As Whewell, the historian of the inductive sciences remarks: “Hypotheses may often be of service to science, when they involve a certain portion of incompleteness, and even error”. Under this point of view I venture to advance the hypothesis of Pangenesis, which implies that every separate part of the whole organisation reproduces itself.
goodusername_{April 12, 2016
April
04
Apr
12
12
2016
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PST}

Origenes: there are obvious answers to all your “questions”. Great! Then it shouldn't be a problem to let us know the answers to the questions @52.Zachriel_{April 12, 2016
April
04
Apr
12
12
2016
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PST}

Zachriel, there are obvious answers to all your "questions". Try figuring things out by yourself.Origenes_{April 12, 2016
April
04
Apr
12
12
2016
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PST}

Origenes: What would developmental biology look like given randomly formed clusters of gemmules, which can contain nothing other than an incoherent mixture of information stemming from all directions? Why randomly formed? Why not each part of the body contributing to the whole? Pan-genesis means "whole-birth". Origenes: I insist that once we have the perception of the Earth as free-floating — once we have adequate perception Once again, what is that “adequate perception”?Zachriel_{April 12, 2016
April
04
Apr
12
12
2016
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PST}

Goodusername, On the the absurdity of Darwin's Pangenesis: All the cells of the body emit gemmules. Gemmules have a “mutual affinity for each other, leading to their aggregation” into germs. Now an obvious question presents itself: how could an aggregate of gemmules, stemming from all the cells of the body, form a coherent set of instruction wrt the embryonal development? What would developmental biology look like given randomly formed clusters of gemmules, which can contain nothing other than an incoherent mixture of information stemming from all directions? Is Pangenesis not in an obvious need for a mechanism that assigns the proper place in the aggregate to each and every gemmule?Origenes_{April 12, 2016
April
04
Apr
12
12
2016
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PST}

Origenes,
Allow me to give it a go (the quotes are from Darwin online):
You mostly just repeated stuff that I had just said.
Your portrayal of Darwin’s position doesn’t quite capture the absurdness of his theory of heredity.
Darwin, as far as I can tell, was the first to propose the idea that inheritance is (at least in many cases) non-blending (with pangenesis it often was and often wasn’t). Darwin was almost the first to propose that there are particles in cells that carry hereditary information (I believe Spencer barely beat him there). Was there something “absurd” about proposing that the particles circulate? Or that they are produced throughout the lifetime of the organism? Yes, it turns out that those ideas are wrong, but there was nothing absurd about the idea, and I doubt you’d say that it was if it was someone other than Darwin that proposed the hypothesis. IMO, Darwin’s hypothesis was rather remarkable considering how little was known about heredity – he did better than anyone else at least. In fact, the primary purpose of the hypothesis was to get the ball rolling on research on heredity – a field of study that really didn’t exist yet. Darwin recognized that the way to get people thinking about the field, and to start experimenting, was to propose a hypothesis. And it worked. Both Galton and Weismann performed tests to try to disprove pangenesis, and as a result both independently discovered the separation of the somatic and germ line. De Vries, who independently discovered “Mendel’s Laws” in the late 19th century with his own experiments, claims that it was Darwin’s hypothesis that inspired him to work in the field of heredity (and used the term “pangenes” in its honor).goodusername_{April 11, 2016
April
04
Apr
11
11
2016
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PST}

Origenes: Your portrayal of Darwin’s position doesn’t quite capture the absurdness of his theory of heredity. Pangenesis, Darwin's "provisional hypothesis", was without much empirical support, but why do you call it absurd? Origenes: I insist that once we have the perception of the Earth as free-floating — once we have adequate perception Once again, what is that “adequate perception”?Zachriel_{April 11, 2016
April
04
Apr
11
11
2016
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PST}

Goodusername, Your portrayal of Darwin's position doesn't quite capture the absurdness of his theory of heredity. Allow me to give it a go (the quotes are from Darwin online): 1. Gemmules are emitted by every cell of the organism during all stages of life.
Gemmules are supposed to be thrown off by every cell or unit, not only during the adult state, but during all the stages of development.
2. Gemmules form aggregations and in doing so form buds or germs.
Lastly, I assume that the gemmules in their dormant state have a mutual affinity for each other, leading to their aggregation either into buds or into the sexual elements. (…) The aggregation of gemmules derived from every part of the body, through their mutual affinity, would form buds, and their aggregation in some special manner, apparently in small quantity, together probably with the presence of gemmules of certain primordial cells, would constitute the sexual elements. (…) According to my view, the germs or gemmules of each separate part were not originally pre-formed, but are continually produced at all ages during each generation, with some handed down from preceding generations.
3. Again, all the cells of the body are (by way of emitting gemmules) involved in producing germs.
Hence, speaking strictly, it is not the reproductive elements, nor the buds, which generate new organisms, but the cells themselves throughout the body.
Origenes_{April 11, 2016
April
04
Apr
11
11
2016
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PST}

Axel,
Of the cell, he merely states that they are self-propagating, inconceivably minute and as numerous as the stars of heaven. All the rest is about ‘the little universe of cells’ of the ORGANIC BEING and the LATTER’S complexity. You must not confuse the properties of the organism with one of the cells constituting it. A massive blunder.
It’s not clear from the quote, but the “hypothesis” he’s referring to there is his hypothesis of pangenesis. Those “self-propagating organisms” that are “inconceivably minute” and “as numerous as the stars in heaven” he refers to aren’t the cells – but the gemmules within cells. That’s why he says that with the “hypothesis here advanced” that the “complexity is much increased,” because he’s proposing that there’s far more going on in cells than anyone imagined. (The notion that there are a lot of small reproducing cells would not be news to most people.) Origenes,
It seems to me that, in Darwin’s days, complexity was thought to reside above the level of the cell. For instance Darwin believed that inherited traits did not stem from cells, but from “gemmules” which were shed by the organs of the body, collected in the bloodstream and then carried to the reproductive organs.
Well, to be more specific, he believed that the gemmules were in the cells of organs. But he also believed that the gemmules could leave the cell and move to other cells in the body. Thus each cell in the body, including gametes, collected gemmules from the other cells in the body. This is how he believed the gametes acquired the information to construct a whole body. He also believed that this happened throughout the lifetime of the body thus giving a mechanism for the inheritance of acquired characteristics. When it was found around the turn of the century that the gemmules (later named pangenes in honor of Darwin’s hypothesis and later shortened to “genes”) were more-or-less stuck in the center/nucleus of cells, most biologists gave up on the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.goodusername_{April 11, 2016
April
04
Apr
11
11
2016
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PST}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply