Interesting vid: Simon Conway Morris answers the question, Is biology structured?

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 11, 2012

Evolution, News}

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

A good discussion of his field, evolutionary convergence – the same patterns reused again and again in far-distant life forms.

A theoretical physicist from Oxford and a professor of evolutionary paleontology from Cambridge discuss the relationship between chance and evolution – is biology structured?

It’s getting harder to distinguish between a serious look at convergent evolution and ID. Thoughts?

See also: From Cambridge’s Simon Conway Morris: Nine Evolutionary Myths

Comments

Just for fun.
Scientists' Discovery of Naturally Programmed Organisms 'Completely Unexpected' April 26, 2012 -- Scientists working in a university lab discovered a mechanism in living systems which can record and store environmental data in areas of what was previously thought to be non-coding DNA. The discovery was made after a bacterial population was noted exhibiting radical changes in morphology over a very few number of generations. This discovery sheds new light on evolution because the mystery of how simpler organisms receive the information necessary to increase in complexity has largely been solved. Scientists discovered an organelle inside bacteria which stores the state of certain environmental cues, such as temperature, humidity, local population metrics, and food supply, and perhaps many more. This organelle encodes and stores this data in non-coding DNA regions. It does this at different intervals, sometimes hourly and often longer. Some regions of the DNA are selectively overwritten with new data. Scientists haven't yet entirely decoded this language of recording metrics, but when they do, certain types of bacterial could be used to make accurate recordings of population and environmental metrics for use in solving crimes, or discovering more about the subtle effects of environment on bacterial populations. But that's not even the most interesting part. As it turns out, some unknown trigger causes all of the bacteria's stored environmental data to be transcribed into new functional subunits, seemingly de novo. This has left scientists baffled. How can it be that variations in environmental conditions, recorded as sequence data in DNA, translate directly into a wide array of new functional systems within the organism? It makes practically no sense to presume that there should be any correlation between random environmental noise and functional complexity; yet that's what is being observed. It would appear that the secret to the programming of life is nearly unraveled. Soon we'll know how random processes interpreted by the organism as specified sequences of functional complexity can produce new forms of life, seemingly out of nothing. This solves a mystery that has been plaguing evolution for quite some time: how does a simple organism actually acquire the programming necessary to express itself as a more complex organism over time? As this new discovery shows, it appears to be entirely by necessity. Copyright 2012, BSPress Corporation.
material.infantacy_{May 11, 2012
May
05
May
11
11
2012
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Before we can decide which of Johnny's list is the correct way to understand convergent evolution, we need more information. For example, in all of the different types of camera eyes that have appeared, how many gene products do they share in common? None or all of them? Is it plausible that given an initial front-loaded state that random mutations could have reached the various end products? Or would we still need many series of very improbable mutations before we get the different eyes?Bilbo I_{May 11, 2012
May
05
May
11
11
2012
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Johnny: "Just to be clear, Behe’s theory doesn’t *require* additional intelligent intervention, though most people read him that way. It’s actually quite similar to MikeGene’s, though perhaps with additional frontloaded information." Behe's theory requires specific events to occur -- non-random mutations -- throughout the history of evolution. You're right, he doesn't think these need be actual interventions. God, or an uberphysicist, might be able to select and actualize one of the few possible universes where all the right events occur. But I think this requires a deterministic view of physical events. If determinism isn't true, then I think intervention if the only alternative. Mike Gene, on the other hand, is working on the hypothesis that after the first cells were designed, no further non-random mutations were required.Bilbo I_{May 11, 2012
May
05
May
11
11
2012
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Jon, I like your list. I'm merging #1 and #3 I think. There are limited ways to do things, and evolution can miraculously stumble upon them multiple times, even in staggeringly vast search spaces, because it's awesome like that. Would #2 imply guidance? Hmmm... Regardless, convergence is unexpected, and sheds new light on evolution. :pmaterial.infantacy_{May 11, 2012
May
05
May
11
11
2012
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

There are alternative ways of looking at this. (1) There are only a few ways of doing things, so evolution's bound to find them over and over again. (2) Evolution only has a few ways of doing things, so it always comes up with the same old answers. (3) Evolution manages to find the very few possible answers repeatedly in a huge search space, so is even more remarkable than was thought. Or even more teleologically: (4) It's the goals that are set, so the starting point and the process are of minor importance.Jon Garvey_{May 11, 2012
May
05
May
11
11
2012
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

Convergent evolution seems to stick a fork in the claim that evolution can make use of vast and different ways of solving problems. Function is constrained by purpose. The sea of possible solutions is perhaps not as vast as evolutionists would suggest.material.infantacy_{May 11, 2012
May
05
May
11
11
2012
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Bilbo - Just to be clear, Behe's theory doesn't *require* additional intelligent intervention, though most people read him that way. It's actually quite similar to MikeGene's, though perhaps with additional frontloaded information.johnnyb_{May 11, 2012
May
05
May
11
11
2012
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

I think we need more details of the hypothetical evolutionary histories of the similar structures -- in this case, the camera eye -- before we can adequately evaluate Morris's claim. Would the details support Mike Gene's front-loaded evolution hypothesis? Would the need for additional intelligent intervention be needed, as Behe insists? But as it is, Morris hasn't put enough flesh on the bones of his hypothesis.Bilbo I_{May 11, 2012
May
05
May
11
11
2012
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply