General Theory of Evolution

Oh my God, Fred is sucking me in! I'll be fired, abandoned, scorned! God give me the willpower to make this the last post today!

Fred writes:

---

Great! So you admit that your theory is now re-defined...

---

I'm not sure how to reply. You've participated in this debate for a long time, so if it's true that you really don't know that the TOE does not view evolution as a progressive force pushing organisms toward improved and more complex forms then I'm surprised. And there's no redefinition. No one here, except you, is using the term "upward evolution."

---

...so that it fits nicely within a creationist framework? In other words, do you agree that there is no evidence for the naturalistic development of new complex systems such as organs, sonar, feathers, etc?

---

Evolutionary solutions to competitive pressures can represent either increasing or decreasing complexity. For example, the cheetah migrates into a new habitat putting the local gazelles under competitive pressure to become more evasive. Most solutions will involve increased complexity. Increased speed would usually mean increased complexity because the gazelle would need improved coordination at the higher speed, improved musculature, better delivery of blood supply to muscles, improved lung capacity, better hoof architecture, and so forth. Evolution of the horns to better fight off the cheetah would not only involve changes to horns, but also to the neck muscles, the skeletal arrangement of the upper spine to better support charging, improved coordination again, and so forth. Many of the solutions will involve increased complexity.But increased complexity is not the only path to improved survival. Getting smaller to better hide in the tall grass is also possible and might involve decreased complexity. Certainly cave fish, which once had sight but lost it, are examples of decreasing complexity.So, both increasing and decreasing complexity are possible with evolution, but increasing complexity seems to more often provide the necessary survival improvement. It is for this reason that the fossil record is one of generally increasing complexity, and not because of any inherently progressive property of evolution.--Percy

Dear percy,You write:
"Evolutionary solutions to competitive pressures can represent either increasing or decreasing complexity. For example, the cheetah migrates into a new habitat putting the local gazelles under competitive pressure to become more evasive. Most solutions will involve increased complexity. Increased speed would usually mean increased complexity because the gazelle would need improved coordination at the higher speed, improved musculature, better delivery of blood supply to muscles, improved lung capacity, better hoof architecture, and so forth. Evolution of the horns to better fight off the cheetah would not only involve changes to horns, but also to the neck muscles, the skeletal arrangement of the upper spine to better support charging, improved coordination again, and so forth. Many of the solutions will involve increased complexity.But increased complexity is not the only path to improved survival. Getting smaller to better hide in the tall grass is also possible and might involve decreased complexity. Certainly cave fish, which once had sight but lost it, are examples of decreasing complexity.So, both increasing and decreasing complexity are possible with evolution, but increasing complexity seems to more often provide the necessary survival improvement. It is for this reason that the fossil record is one of generally increasing complexity, and not because of any inherently progressive property of evolution.I rewrite:
"BIOLOGICAL solutions to competitive pressures can represent either NO increasing or decreasing complexity DUE TO A MULTI PURPOSE GENOME THAT ALLOWS ORGANISMS TO RESPOND RAPIDLY TO CHANGING ENVIRONMENTS. For example, the cheetah migrates into a new habitat putting the local gazelles under competitive pressure to become more evasive. THE solutions involves NO INCREASE IN complexity, BUT THE SHUFFLING AND ACTIVATION OF PREEXISTING (REDUNDANT) GENES. Increased speed would usually mean increased complexity because the gazelle would need improved coordination at the higher speed, SO THE PREEXISTING PATHWAYS IN THE MOTORCORTEX ARE ADJUSTED JUST AS NEEDED. THE SAME ACCOUNTS FOR improved musculature, better delivery of blood supply to muscles, improved lung capacity, better hoof architecture, and so forth. ADAPTATIONS of the horns to better fight off the cheetah would not only involve MODIFICATIONS OF PREEXISTING REGULATORY PROGRAMS to horns, but also to the neck muscles, the skeletal arrangement of the upper spine to better support charging, improved coordination again, and so forth. The solutions will NOT involve increased complexity.SINCE ALL INFORMATION IS PRESENT IN THE MULTIPURPOSE GENOME, increased complexity is not REQUIRED to improved survival. Getting smaller to better hide in the tall grass is also possible THROUGH DIFFERENTIAL REGULATION OF GROWTH FACTORS and might involve decreased OR NO EFFECT ON complexity AT ALL. Certainly cave fish, which once had sight but lost it, are examples of decreasing complexity DUE TO LOSS OF GENES OR DIFFERENTIAL GENE EXPRESSION.So, NO increase in complexity IS REQUIRED and decreasing complexity IS possible with A MULTI PURPOSE GENOME, but THE EXTANT complexity IN THE MULTIPURPOSE GENOME seems to more often provide the necessary survival improvement. It is for THE reason OF CREATONS IN A MORPHOGENETIC FIELD that the fossil record is one of generally increasing complexity, and not because of any inherently progressive property of THE ONCE VERY POPULAR THEORY OF evolution, THAT IN OUR 21st CENTURY VISION SEEMS A BIT UNREALISTIC.Best wishes,
PETER[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-27-2002]

You should try to define each and every term you use, then you would see how your formulation is problematical.What does beneficial trait mean?Clearly you have not stated a general theory of evolution but a hodgepodge of special case evolution involving carnivores, sexually reproducing, and competing organisms. For it to be general you should not mention peculiarities like carnivores, sexual reproduction, and even competition in the fundaments of the theory. Also you seem to be stating the theory of natural selection, and not evolution.If you start defining terms then you would see that the only escape from the conceptual mess you have created, is to have a general theory of reproduction, and then have mutation as incident to reproduction to explain evolution.---
That would go something like below.General Theory of ReproductionA cursory glance at the fossilrecord reveals the fate of organic life in general, all organisms die. Therefore only through continuous reproduction are there any organisms left in the world. The question of interest then becomes, how does an organism reproduce?The answer from nature can fill many books. There is an incredible diversity of organisms, living in an incredibly diverse environment, and there are many ways and happenstances by which an organism can come to reproduce. To deal with the unicity of Nature in respect to the reproduction of organisms, a clear understanding of the consequences of reproduction in general is needed.To simplify matters, I will anchor the understanding of the nature of reproduction in the observation of the most simple organism, the DNA molecule. Not only does the DNA molecule function in the development of traits, but it can also reproduce itself independent of any trait. When DNA is put on a feedingdish, without a cell, without a body to carry it, it is still capable to use the resources on the dish to assemble copies of itself. And so are the newly assembled copies of DNA able to make copies of themselves from the resources on the dish. The ability of the copies to also make copies results in the number of DNA molecules to increase faster and faster. The resources on the dish will become scarce leading to competition for resources for reproduction. Some DNA might get tangled up leading to changes in the stucture of the DNA molecule. A small example of descent with modification, or evolution.- larger domain of possible organic structures, the smaller domain of possible organic structures that reproduce- scenario's
same structures in same environment
same structures in different environments
different structures in same environment
different structures in different environments- possible relationships of organisms/traits to it's environment
the relationship contributes to reproduction
the relationship hinders reproduction
the relationship doesn't hinder or contribute reproduction- sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction-definition
reproductive unit
environment
selection
chance of reproduction
evolution
mutation
trait
competitionetc. etc. like that....regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Hi Peter,Fred seemed to think that we were redefining the TOE by abandoning an "upward evolution" perspective, and I was only explaining to Fred that such a perspective has never been the view of anyone here, that he was the only one using the term "upward evolution", and further explained what the current view is. It was the evolutionist formulation of the TOE that Fred was misconstruing, not the Peter Borger formulation.--Percy

Pretty much my physical INTERPRETATION of evolutionary theory tries to concieve any population homogeneity (the existence of which is what is actually in population thinking in question)*has* been able to turn around my contractural obligation with Cornell University to investigate levels of organization by "downward causality(Cambell)" in particular material terms of upward evolution (using the last word in Lewontin's constructable sense of "involution"). These terms for use with protons, electrons, magentrons, nanotechology in the final blue print may not work but the specification seems to warrent use of such word as "upward causality".In this philosophy I have tried to go beyond Hume as I think Richard Boyd thought really but I am doing this from an interest in Kant and not from some theis-anti-thesis except perhaps the actual accusation between Fisher and Wright.Perhaps I do not count in this line of threaded lists but I do not know if you intended to speak for my posts as well??This is not an obligatory question and can be slanted without slander as rethorical for the time being.

Just for reference Peter, you seem to be misunderstanding a bit:

quote:

---

BIOLOGICAL solutions to competitive pressures can represent either NO increasing or decreasing complexity DUE TO A MULTI PURPOSE GENOME THAT ALLOWS ORGANISMS TO RESPOND RAPIDLY TO CHANGING ENVIRONMENTS. For example, the cheetah migrates into a new habitat putting the local gazelles under competitive pressure to become more evasive.

---

This is something of a mis-statement. A change in the selection pressures in a given organism's environment don't cause the organism to change. This is the fallacy of "upward" or progressive evolution you keep talking about. Selection pressures on a population tend to favor the survival of individuals with certain characteristics, primarily be weeding out those individuals who don't have those characteristics. Eventually, the "favored" characteristics will come to predominate in the population. To use your own example, the introduction of cheetahs into an environment where gazelles have never faced cheetah predation will not cause anything like an "upward pressure" forcing gazelles to get more evasive. What happens is the "slow" gazelles get eaten, the "fast" (comparatively) survive at least long enough to reproduce. Therefore, "fast" traits get passed down to the next generation. Remember the old joke about the two guys being chased by the bear: "Why are you putting on tennis shoes? You can't outrun a bear.", one says. The other responds, "I don't have to outrun the bear. I only have to outrun you." Natural selection works to favor the guy with tennis shoes...

Syamsu, I have read your "Theory of Reproduction" and to put it simply it is merely a restatement in less technical form of Dawkins "Selfish Gene" concept (ie all of life is the command "make copies" and all surrounding parts are just to help that aspect) and outlined in "The Selfish Gene" and "River out of Eden". It is also a part, and merely a part, of Natural Selection; although maybe somewhat better defined. All that you appear to be doing is redefining the reproductive portion of the theory. For a better understanding of the falacies of this view I would suggest reading material by someone like Niles Eldredge, maybe The Pattern of Evolution, or Ernst Mayer.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

You have it the wrong way round, a general theory of reproduction is not a part of Natural Selection, but Natural Selection is arguably a part of a general theory of reproduction. Natural Selection deals with one special instance of reproduction namely differential reproductive success of variants. Natural Selection doesn't deal with samestructure organisms in different environments for instance, while a general theory of reproduction does.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Dear Quetzal,You write:
"This is something of a mis-statement. A change in the selection pressures in a given organism's environment don't cause the organism to change. This is the fallacy of "upward" or progressive evolution you keep talking about. Selection pressures on a population tend to favor the survival of individuals with certain characteristics, primarily be weeding out those individuals who don't have those characteristics. Eventually, the "favored" characteristics will come to predominate in the population. To use your own example, the introduction of cheetahs into an environment where gazelles have never faced cheetah predation will not cause anything like an "upward pressure" forcing gazelles to get more evasive. What happens is the "slow" gazelles get eaten, the "fast" (comparatively) survive at least long enough to reproduce. Therefore, "fast" traits get passed down to the next generation.I say:
Exactly my point. The DNA of the fast animals is already in the genepool of the multipurpose genome. A bit of shuffling, a bit of (non-)random mutations and voila a "new" faster population after a couple of generations! New genes? NO. Different organisation? Maybe. Distinct gene regulation? Sure.Remember the old joke about the two guys being chased by the bear: "Why are you putting on tennis shoes? You can't outrun a bear.", one says. The other responds, "I don't have to outrun the bear. I only have to outrun you." Natural selection works to favor the guy with tennis shoes... "Yes, I remember. It was a joke, wasn't it? And that is why everyone is wearing Nikes, nowadays?Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-27-2002]

This is the kind of interaction for interactors that WIll provine claims is not possible to mediate between Fisher and Wright. This kind of difference is available to be resolved by science if we could JUST get past the rhetoric. Good Jop you two.

Dear Syamsa,Although your remarks are interesting, I have a few comments.You say:
To simplify matters, I will anchor the understanding of the nature of reproduction in the observation of the most simple organism, the DNA molecule. Not only does the DNA molecule function in the development of traits, but it can also reproduce itself independent of any trait. When DNA is put on a feedingdish, without a cell, without a body to carry it, it is still capable to use the resources on the dish to assemble copies of itself.I say:
This is not entirely true. To make copies of DNA it always needs pylomerases (proteins) and you have to add them to the medium. So, the DNA molecule needs at least one trait. In living cells the DNA molecule specifies these polymereases and are induced only during cellgrowth. Considering the halflife of proteins --and thus polymerases-- one always has to replenish wornout polymerases from external. So, the DNA molecule does not replicate by itself, it requires polymerases.And you say:
And so are the newly assembled copies of DNA able to make copies of themselves from the resources on the dish. The ability of the copies to also make copies results in the number of DNA molecules to increase faster and faster. The resources on the dish will become scarce leading to competition for resources for reproduction. Some DNA might get tangled up leading to changes in the stucture of the DNA molecule. A small example of descent with modification, or evolution.I say:
Experiments like this have been carried out with RNA's of different lengths and RNA polymerases in the lab under limiting conditions and it turned out that there is selection. After several selective cycles the SHORTER RNA molecules increase, since they are able to replicate faster. Ultimately the shortest RNA survived.
Similarly, DNA in an organism that is not under selective constraint will easily be lost.Best wishes,
Peter

I didn't know this, but still I consider proteins a resource, and not a trait, because that is consistent with how those words are most commonly defined as far as I know. Also someone told me that it was proven on the molecular level that the assembly of DNA follows from the action of the DNA molecule, and not from the action of the resources on the DNA. Selection of "naked" RNA, I was looking for something like that, thanks for your comments.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Can you come up with an acceptable theory of creationism that would address everything that would be accepted by the scientific world? I did not think so, becuase you can not.The theory is a general theory, What does general mean, it means in most cases, in the norm. No it cannot possibly address everything, becuase it was out of this topic's scope. I am sure the original author of this topic could lead you in the right way.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Sure let's poke holes in his theory, which I am not going to do. Where is your theory? Do you have a better one? Do you have one with no loopholes? Did not think so. I do not claim evolution to be perfect, becuase we do not know everything yet. Wonder if we will, but that does not matter.What matters is that you creationist cannot come up with a plausible theory that the scientists would not find holes to poke into. Sure, and also we can intrepret things the way we want to intrepret them. I am sorry you cannot read simple words and take their simple meanings. Always have to be looking for contradictory meanings. What a meager existance. But the again religionists are famous for taking things out of context, such as their own "bible", why should this be any different? Can they not believe something without trying to change its meaning?------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day[This message has been edited by acmhttu001_2006, 09-30-2002]

"Can you come up with an acceptable theory of creationism that would address everything that would be accepted by the scientific world?"
--I'm at a loss as to what it is you are trying to pin-point in your search for a acceptable 'theory of creationism'. Could you be more specific? What topic of study and specific phenomena do you need a theoretical explanation for?--Mabye a new thread should be created for this query.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-30-2002]