Back to Basics: For Mike the Wiz

This is for Mike the Wiz to post any questions he might have about evolution. I don't expect us to be able to duplicate a real science education but I figure we can do him a favor and answer some of his questions.Post away, Mike - we'll see what we can do.

This is probably the wrong place to post this but since I believe you were mentioning computer models of evolution..here is a new one in this weeks Nature...and who knows..maybe it get's mike the wiz thinking a bit more about the topic at hand.Nature 423, 139 - 144 (2003); doi:10.1038/nature01568The evolutionary origin of complex featuresRICHARD E. LENSKI*, CHARLES OFRIA, ROBERT T. PENNOCK & CHRISTOPH ADAMI* Department of Microbiology & Molecular Genetics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA
Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA
Lyman Briggs School & Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA
Digital Life Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USACorrespondence and requests for materials should be addressed to R.E.L. (lenski@msu.edu).A long-standing challenge to evolutionary theory has been whether it can explain the origin of complex organismal features. We examined this issue using digital organismscomputer programs that self-replicate, mutate, compete and evolve. Populations of digital organisms often evolved the ability to perform complex logic functions requiring the coordinated execution of many genomic instructions. Complex functions evolved by building on simpler functions that had evolved earlier, provided that these were also selectively favoured. However, no particular intermediate stage was essential for evolving complex functions. The first genotypes able to perform complex functions differed from their non-performing parents by only one or two mutations, but differed from the ancestor by many mutations that were also crucial to the new functions. In some cases, mutations that were deleterious when they appeared served as stepping-stones in the evolution of complex features. These findings show how complex functions can originate by random mutation and natural selection.

I'm not Mike, but I'm new to the debate.One question I've wanted someone to answer is simply: Has anyone reconciled the Biblical term "kind" with the scientific term "species"?I mean, Linaeus classified living things, so that today it is common to think of different varieties as different species. But is it not erroneous to see "mutations" and automatically think that this proves the creationists wrong?If we start with the assumption that the original meaning of the word "kind" was to distinguish between those creatures that could reproduce (hence the phrase "after its kind"), then has there ever been observed an example of bisexual reproduction occurring between any two creatures previously incapable of such a union?Are not mutations, and all of the variety that they create, simply variety "within a kind"? So far as the evolution-creation debate, if men "assign" a mutation status as a new "species", does this not contradict the validity of the original hypothesis (that new species can develop on their own)?Darwin's hypothesis -- that species variety is shaped by natural selection processes (one species having advantage over another)-- was never meant to convey the idea that new "kinds" of creatures will occur naturally. Only through men manipulating genetic code and creating "monsters" can we perhaps one day actually realize a new "kind".But then, does this not prove "creation" is required to invent a new kind? Random processes alone cannot achieve it. Some sort of guiding or directing force must be applied from outside the system. In nature, we find every closed system existing in a state of balance, and it is only outside forces which "disrupt" those systems.So far as the "digital organisms" I just read about, are these not also "creations" in a laboratory, with a closed system "created" and governed by the rules of the researchers? I suspect that the "complexity" referred to by those researchers actually translates into a richness of variety, within the "kind" of digital organism created.In any case, can someone enlighten me on this topic?

I think there is a topic somewhere on the idea of "kinds". I just did a quick look and can't find it. Does anyone know where that is?Perhaps you could start with a bit of research?What is the creationist definition of "kind"? I've seen it clearly defined as "species" in some places. That is, they use one of the definitions of species referring to normally successfully interbreeds.I've also seen it defined pretty much at the family level, the genus level and sort of everywhere in between.
The creationist technical term for this is barmin and they are supposed to be "doing research" on this. However, nothing seems to be forth coming.The other thing that is missing is any clue as to what the barrier between "kinds" is? Perhaps you can find something on that? There is supposed to be some magic boundary that can't be crossed by changes and selction. There isn't one. This idea is what I read in the bible. That is, kind is species. Since new species have been observed to arise this is incorrect.What do you mean by "bisexual reproduction"? If you mean that you think evolutionary theory calls for two unrelated creatures breeding you are very, very far off the mark and need to do a little research on what evolutionary theory is about before you ask any more such questions. This is wrong. Random changes and selection can produce large changes. Some changes between very high taxonomic levels have been recorded in the fossil record (reptiles - mammals, reptiles- birds)Read a bunch of stuff here first then ask more knowledgeable questions.

Creationists Cannot Define "Kind", started by Budikka, last message (61) 5/1/03 Definition of created kind!, started by ZAURUZ, last message (86) 7/14/02 Kinds and diversification through microevolution and hybridization, started by Tranquility Base, last message (44) 10/3/02AM[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-09-2003]

Thanks AM
Now did you just remember those or find them some other way?

I keep a database of all the topics and topic information. I have posted a link to an online version of this in the past, and am thinking of doing it again. But it's a bit of a pain to keep the on-line version current. Also, do I want to post it as HTML and/or as an Excel spreadsheet.An alternative is to use the sites search engine. See "search" at top right of index pages, or in the pull down menus.Try various ways of searching for "kind", "kind kinds", "kinds". I tried, and found that you need to do separate searches for "kind" and "kinds", to find all the possibilities.Another possibility is to download a version of the "Topic List for All Forums". Just make sure you set things to go far enough back. Then use your browser seach utility, to find "kind" on the page. In that case you'll also find the "kinds".AM

Good observation and question However you find all to often it is met with such a response as below Respectfully, Paul.

Why would evolution predict such a thing? (For that matter, what do you mean by "bisexual reproduction"?)Evolution predicts that populations, when separated, lose the ability to interbreed. We observe this in nature and in the lab.If species that couldn't interbeed were suddely able to, that would mean that there were less species (kinds), not more. Evolution predicts that the number of species (kinds, whatever) will increase, and it does. So it doesn't really seem like your comments suggest a knowledge of what evolution says and doesn't say. Well, you can say that, but until somebody proses a mechanism for what separates one kind from another, that statement is meaningless. No such mechanism has been proposed. To the contrary - Darwin attempted to explain the variety of life via decent with modification. He never made any comments about kinds because that classification system doesn't exist.You see, it's a bind for creationists. If by kinds they mean species, then we see new kinds all the time. If they mean some greater taxa, then they have yet to define what that is. Do you mean, are they going to be anything but digital organisms? Of course not. But will physical organisms be anything but? No. If digital organisms are all one "kind" then all physical organisms have to be one "kind" as well.With no idea what kinds really means, it's impossible to use it to construct theory. If outside forces can affect the system, it's not really "closed", is it? It's an open system that's part of a larger system.I don't know if this really enlightens you, but hopefully this will help you realize some of the contradictions in your post.

This is an issue worthy of a topic of it's own. It is also new enough that it doesn't deserve the:
"Read a bunch of stuff here first then ask more knowledgeable questions."
answer.I like to think I use that answer when truely simply minded questions are asked that have been already answered here or for which the answer can be found with a simple google and a couple of hours.In addition, I find myself unable to not answer a little anyway at least most of the time If you think it has been over used I believe it would be fair of you to point that out on a case by case basis and insist on a little more.If you want more on the genetic programming issue (which I think has already been discussed a little) bring up the issue on it's own topic.

Wasn't his big book titled The Origin of Species? That would suggest that it was about how new species originate, wouldn't it?

"If we start with the assumption that the original meaning of the word "kind" was to distinguish between those creatures that could reproduce (hence the phrase "after its kind"), then has there ever been observed an example of bisexual reproduction occurring between any two creatures previously incapable of such a union?"M: Greetings, like some of the others I am not clear what exactly you mean here. I assume you mean sexual reproduction as opposed to say a unicellular organism "reproducing" with a multicellular organism. However, when you say "two creatures previously incapable of such a union" do you mean something like hybrids of two species? There are baboon species that can hybridize but the offspring are sterile. Ditto for crickets. Or are you meaning something more distant like say an elephant successfully reproducing with a rhino?"Are not mutations, and all of the variety that they create, simply variety "within a kind"? So far as the evolution-creation debate, if men "assign" a mutation status as a new "species", does this not contradict the validity of the original hypothesis (that new species can develop on their own)?"M: Then how would you quantify the variation? There is certainly a great deal more genetic difference between an anemone and a human than a chimp and a human...with such a fuzzy definition of kind would all the variation be subsumed under the word kind? One does not assigne a mutation status to a species. In genetics one observes the geentic differences between different organisms...one does not assign the mutations to them a priori. The observed mutations do not invalidate the hypothesis that species develop on their own or am I misreading what you were asking?"Darwin's hypothesis -- that species variety is shaped by natural selection processes (one species having advantage over another)-- was never meant to convey the idea that new "kinds" of creatures will occur naturally. Only through men manipulating genetic code and creating "monsters" can we perhaps one day actually realize a new "kind"."M: This is entirely incorrect...could you please cite the specific chapter where Darwin discusses this? It seems to be missing from my edition of the Origin of Species."But then, does this not prove "creation" is required to invent a new kind? Random processes alone cannot achieve it. Some sort of guiding or directing force must be applied from outside the system. In nature, we find every closed system existing in a state of balance, and it is only outside forces which "disrupt" those systems."M: Could you please provide an example of an entirely closed system? What is the definition of outside the system? The woolly mammoths of Asia (except Wrangel Island) went extinct at the end of the Pleitocene due to either 1)climate change 2) human hunting pressure 3) disease 4) a combination of the above...which is the internal or outside force that then opened up the environments where mammoths lived to other species to fill in the ecological niche?"So far as the "digital organisms" I just read about, are these not also "creations" in a laboratory, with a closed system "created" and governed by the rules of the researchers? I suspect that the "complexity" referred to by those researchers actually translates into a richness of variety, within the "kind" of digital organism created."M: Actually that would be a rather bad misreading of the paper...did you read the entire paper or just the abstract I posted? In any case, the digital organisms did not just gain variety, they evolved completely novel and complex functions from simple replicating units. If you search under the first authors name in PubMed, the results with the digital organisms match very nicely with data from bacterial evolution....in terms of the guiding they did in the experiment, they determined the selective pressure but did not guide the process per se.by the way, welcome to the forum.Cheers,
M