Summations Only

I used to think that there might be some kind of influence of the brain on evolution.
who knows, maybe instincts are are the result of the brains infuence on epigenetics.but mainly what I think now is that evolution is just much more sophisticated than generally thought.each person has 2 parents each of which had 2 parents and so on.
after only a small number of generations that is a lot of ancestors.now suppose that each individual has a certain number of 'bigness' genes and a certain number of 'shortness' genes which it records somehow in its dna.
in each individuals dna would be recorded how many 'bigness' genes its parents had and their parents and their parents and so on.
from this information could be built up a histogram of gene frequency.
now suppose that every individual with more than a certain number of 'bigness' genes dies before producing children. (because they are too big to survive)
the histogram should show a sharp drop off at that point.
this information could conceivably be used by the organism to determine how tall or short it should be. If it had too many 'bigness' genes it might turn some off or do something to tweak how it responds to the genes. (perhaps through epigenetics)thats just a purely hypothetical example to show how such information could conceivably be useful to the organism. Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : much clearer

One thing you might consider is that the farther back you go, the more common ancestors you have.Do the math and see what I mean.If we followed your line of reasoning we would have far more ancestors than we've ever had living people in a surprisingly short time. While the role of epigenetics is still being explored, natural selection seems to have served quite adequately to eliminate the unsuitable extremes over time. It is unlikely that it will be entirely, or even largely eliminated from the theory by future discoveries concerning epigenetics.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

One thing you might consider is that the farther back you go, the more common ancestors you have.

​

Do the math and see what I mean.

​

If we followed your line of reasoning we would have far more ancestors than we've ever had living people in a surprisingly short time.

---

well duh.

quote:

---

While the role of epigenetics is still being explored, natural selection seems to have served quite adequately to eliminate the unsuitable extremes over time. It is unlikely that it will be entirely, or even largely eliminated from the theory by future discoveries concerning epigenetics

---

I thought I was describing natural selection.

Is is untrue according to your theory you believe. But what about according to the following?
A Biochemical Mechanism for Nonrandom Mutations and Evolution
Barbara E. Wright*
Division of Biological Sciences, The University of Montana." As this minireview is concerned with the importance of the environment in directing evolution, it is appropriate to remember that Lamarck was the first to clearly articulate a consistent theory of gradual evolution from the simplest of species to the most complex, culminating in the origin of mankind (71). He published his remarkable and courageous theory in 1809, the year of Darwin's birth. Unfortunately, Lamarck's major contributions have been overshadowed by his views on the inheritance of acquired characters. In fact, Darwin shared some of these same views, and even Weismann (106), the father of neo-Darwinism, decided late in his career that directed variation must be invoked to understand some phenomena, as random variation and selection alone are not a sufficient explanation (71). This minireview will describe mechanisms of mutation that are not random and can accelerate the process of evolution in specific directions. The existence of such mechanisms has been predicted by mathematicians (6) who argue that, if every mutation were really random and had to be tested against the environment for selection or rejection, there would not have been enough time to evolve the extremely complex biochemical networks and regulatory mechanisms found in organisms today. Dobzhansky (21) expressed similar views by stating "The most serious objection to the modern theory of evolution is that since mutations occur by `chance' and are undirected, it is difficult to see how mutation and selection can add up to the formation of such beautifully balanced organs as, for example, the human eye."
As i can see from above there aren't yet absolute truths on this field. In any case my theory has to be tested against facts and hard scientific findings and not old beliefs that time renders them more and more shaky.Edited by zi ko, 06-19-2011 12:31 PM: No reason given.

---

Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.

We've discussed this paper extensively in this thread. If you have some particular point that you think others are missing, I suggest that you make that point more explicitly rather than simply quote the article. We've seen and discussed the paragraph you quoted.Barbara Wright hypothesizes that organisms have mechanisms that allow a Lamarckian-like adaptation to the environment, and that such mechanisms are likely the product of random mutation/natural selection. Her hypothesis seems more evolutionary than revolutionary, and I'm not all that certain that Shapiro advocates anything different.What seems goofy to me in all that is the non standard characterization of such mechanisms as sentient. You are sentient, and your digestive system reacts non-randomly to the types of food you eat. But we don't say that your digestion is under sentient control. I don't see that the non-random change mechanisms that Shapiro and Wright discuss are any different.On the other hand, I do agree that evolution as taught to 9th grade biology students, probably is oversimplified. Modern evolutionary theory likely wasn't being taught when most of the people participating here were in high school. I have no idea what they are teaching now.

Funnily enough the human gut has 100,000s of neurons in the lining.But, of course your point stands: and zi ko's falls in the ditch of Great Crank.

Idon't remember having discussed in this thread this page again. B Wright is quite clear in her sayings. Even you (amongst Darwin,Weisman,, Shapiro ect) accept 'that organisms have mechanisms that allow a Lamarckian-like adaptation to the environment", as you seem to agree that tere are such mechanisms.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

---

Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.

Wright's only substantive examples are bacterial, and the extent to which they are directed is highly contentious. There is no clear way for similar mechanisms to operate in an organism with a division between the soma and germ line.For a detailed discussion of Wright, although not in this thread, see the other thread you have just posted the same material in; starting at Message 65 and going on for a good proportion of the thread.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

What i understand from your commenting on B. Wright's work, is that you admitt , at least on the bacterial level, there is a mechanism that directs evolution through mutation and NS towards useful paths. In this mechanism obviously information from environment is an essential element.If we do accept such a mehcanism in the bacterial level, it is not logical i thik to denay it to the polycellular organisms, where there is a complex neural system to serve this purpose. From this point it we are easily lead to my neurogenic theory of evolution.( http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com). I would be much obliged if you can comment on it

---

Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.

Whales are not human but have the same neural spindles as humans and greater apes only. Parallel evolution is meant to hand wave the discrepency away.The domain name aftertek.com is for sale | Dan.comFurther there is a general implication that researchers do not know what they are talking about anymore. They do not know how when where or why. The only thing that is agreed on clearly is that 'it all evolved' which is not a lynchpin argument anyway.http://naturalselection.0catch.com/...logeny.html#Cytochrome
The chaos theory of evolution | New ScientistThe new theory between evolution and creation is that they are both theoretical and far from factual, nor scientifically established.

No, Mazzy, they also found those spindle neurons in other cetaceans, such as dolphins (toothed whales).Publishing their verifiable data together with their conclusions is the opposite of hand waving it away.From your first source: That certainly is not hand waving it away. It’s trying to find out what the similarities are to be able to provide a logical explanation.Creationists have the problem here: Why do some members of the same kind have those neural spindles, while other members of the same kind don’t? Did the ‘cdesigner’ forget to create those spindles in some members of the same ‘kind’, but remembered to do it in other members of that kind?Researchers are trying to explain reality by studying the empirical evidence, derive some logical conclusions about the evidence and publishing it all (verifiable evidence, conclusions, etc., the works) in scientific papers for everyone to read. It’s part and parcel of what's called the scientific method.Those researchers don’t claim to know it all. That’s why they do research in attempts to increase knowledge on the subject and therefore they are called researchers.If they thought knew it all, they wouldn’t be called researchers, but something else, something like "creationists".The fact that life evolves is verifiable. You ignoring reality won’t change it. The Theory of Evolution is just as established in science as the Atom Theory and the Gravity Theory. You trying to hand wave facts away won’t alter reality.Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistake and added the word in before "attempts"Edited by Pressie, : Added the word first before "source".Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Then you misunderstand, the system that Wright describes only 'directs' mutation in the weakest sense. Wright notes an elevated rate of mutation at specific loci associated with a particular response to the environment. She then posits that these elevated rates are more likely to produce beneficial mutations relevant to the specific challenge, although there is no actual evidence of this. There is also an elevated rate of deleterious mutations but the hypothesis relies on NS to weed those out. It is perfectly logical for the very clear reason I pointed out. In bacteria there is no division of the somatic and germ cells. There is only one cell so it can profit from the modification of it's own genome in a way that is impossible for metazoa.There is no plausible mechanism by which the phenomenon Wright describes could operate on anything other than perhaps genes involved in germ cell development itself. A complex neural system in no way serves the same purpose and it is biologically incoherent to claim that it does. In what way does your neural system act as a mechanism to derepress specific genes as an environmental response? And even if we were to accept this dubious premise how is this information supposed to be transmitted from the somatic cells to the germ cells? You would need to be activating/derepressing specific genes in the germ cells in response to the particular environmental challenge.TTFN,WK

If you wished really, really, really hard.......

Hi Mazzy,It appears that you popped in to yet another thread to do a drive-by. I checked out the first thing you said to see if you're actually introducing valid points: Can you point out where in the article it says that whales and humans have the same neural spindles? Also, here's a link to the original technical article in the The Anatomical Record, and you won't find this claim there, either: Not only does the article you cited not say what you claim it says, the article itself seems suspect. For instance, the quote in the first paragraph ("certain cetaceans and hominids may have evolved side by side") appears nowhere in the article in The Anatomical Record, and it is not something the article ever says.But I think you were probably not trying to make a precise statement when you said that humans and whales have the same neural spindles. I think you were just trying to cite more evidence of a homology (in this case, structural and locational similarities of spindle cells in the brains of humans and whales) that you feel is insufficiently supported by the evidence as caused by evolution.But what's important from a moderator standpoint is whether you're going to stick around and argue the points you've introduced into the discussion. If you are then carry on, by all means. But if you don't post again to this thread then the next drive-by I see will draw a suspension. Edited by Admin, : Retract warning portion.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Spindle neurons and parallel evolution it is not a problem between evoutionists and creationists. It could be only a problem between evolutionists. Admitting that fuctionally driven evolution does not need intervention by a Creator. It just support that evolution is information driven.Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

---

Information: It is time its undeservedly neglectet powerful role to evolution to be restored.