Member (Idle past 1692 days)
Message 1 of 433 (601041)
01-18-2011 12:18 PM
NEURAL TISSUE: A NEW ROLE. CARRIER AND CAUSE OF EVOLUTION? A NEW THEORY ABOUT EVOLUTION.
From early beginning on species scale we see the appearance of primitive neural tissue. Up to now we think of this tissue as another one amongst other tissues of a living being, parallel evolved, and its function restricted to transfer informative staff from environment to inner organs and to regulate their functions. But if we look carefully, we will see that exactly these functions are they who very clearly relate with some of basic mechanisms and faces of evolution. Environment changes, which gradually influence organisms to evolve towards one or other direction, are sensed firstly and basically by neural system. At the same moment information reception and diffusion inside the organism is neural system main function. So it is easy to accept neural system as the vehicle of evolution process and its basic role to evolution process.
As we know N.S, even primordial one, has memory, accumulated and classified, so it is logical to think that accumulated information-irritations of same nature, but always having the element of danger and discontent, when reaching a critical number, they press neural cell to take action towards basic cell systems, as DNA, or elsewhere, to start process of adaptation to final organ change. How else could it be done? Nervous tissue is the most appropriate place for this function and what does it happen to its territory, is in fact the first and crucial step for any phenotypic and genotypic change to come. It seems to me all these like self evident. From early time in species scale, to their development to more complex ones, neural tissue always searches environment, locates dangers, seeks for chances, finds or not solutions, feels security or insecurity. All these above, amongst others form the basis for any change to, or not, follow.
This process to changes at the beginning can be only instability of DNA chain bonds at specific places, so incidental (?) breakings and mutations can take place later. This procedure of course does not preclude any changes on DNA, which are indented towards a specific, gradual, functional and anatomical organ change, in accordance of what N.S. had targeted for. It is obvious that relatively steady environments do not ask for many changes to creatures, at specific geologic periods.
It seems that acceptance of all above, means that a wide field of various branches of scientific search, on the levels of biochemistry, biology, physiology and so on, is opened to knowledge.
.....So neural system role may be not only a passively reflecting, but a more complex one, and very active and substantial, as refers to creatures evolution. It seems that known or unknown processes, which regulate evolution, are defined by N.S. Very early in animal climax, N.S starts sensing and transferring feelings of pain, hunger, thirstiness etc, as well as, gradually of discontent, insecurity or security, uneasiness in front of threats etc., and these refer not only upper class animals. If environmental changes are continuous but not lethal, they will at the end lead to the process of evolution, thanks to nervous system. Gradually central nervous system is formulated and takes its central role. It can make more complex actions, as foresee threats, choose complicated defiance or attacking tactics, find solution in difficult situations, etc. This of course widens the scope and role of N.S (finding solutions by using animal’s own abilities, is a way of conserving existing phenotype or genotype, otherwise, not solving the problem, it gears on evolution mechanism).
So when we talk of species evolution, maybe we should mean neuro-genic evolution.
- With this theory of neurogenic evolution we can explain “punctuated equilibrium” introduced by Gould .Obviously during some geologic periods, environmental changes were frequent, strong and lasting, and neurogenic evolution was more energetically involved and changes were more often. On the other side evolutionary static periods refer to geologically quite periods (stasis). Also we can understand and explain how animals have developed such compound abilities and tactics about defiance, attacking, survival in general, where natural selection, Mendellian genetics,and mutations are, in my opinion, very poor to give us convincing answers. How, for example, can they explain the ability of a species of crow to use special longish rugged leafs of special plant, with their incisions having the appropriate direction, so to take out insects from their deep hole-nests? Even if we accept that an individual had by chance discover this clever way and had shown it to other members, isn’t this compound action (e.g. discovering and showing it) an act made clearly by N.S, which of course leads to further evolution? This example makes clear that first act of evolution does happen on neural system, and neural evolution is the first and most crucial step in overall evolution, which energises the mechanism of it. It cannot be any phenotypic or genotypic change, before a relative neuronal change takes place. But here a serious question-objection can be posed:
How all these informational staff ,mainly that which bears emotional burden, collected by nervous system of a singular being, during its life, could be transferred to next generations, so to be able to gear evolutionary process? a) Through heredity? It is not logical, except if we accept that neural tissue has its own way to inherit its life experiences. b) Through behavioral teaching? It is not convincingly possible. After all teaching may involve only technical information, not emotions. Maybe we should need to resort to EMPATHY. Its presence is well established even in low scale living beings, and particularly between mother and offspring. Maybe we will have to revise our views about its width and dept, as well as its role. Maybe through empathy are formed teams of same emotional construction, as regards ways of feeling and reacting to specific environmental changes that makes it possible to interact and genetically couple to each other, so to inherit their characteristics.
I think that with this theory, we now maybe are entering a wide and exiting field of new knowledge. New problems to solve are arising in biology, biochemistry, physiology etc, as well as theological philosophy. Surely evolution does exist, but by which terms? Is neurogenic evolution making evolution as a whole more easily acceptable? In other words is it putting aside Intelligent Design theory, or just it is simply changing the field of contest? Neural system is itself subject to evolution. Which rules does it obey in its way to change? Does it auto-regulate its own evolution? How neuronal excretions act on DNA?
|I'm now considering promoting this topic to a yet to be determined forum. This opening message was re-presented in message 5, with some minor changes of unknown to me significance. - Adminnemooseus |
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added blank lines between paragraphs and otherwise tweaked some of the formatting.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add red box comment.
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 2 by Admin, posted 01-18-2011 1:57 PM|| ||zi ko has responded|
Member (Idle past 1692 days)
Message 5 of 433 (601411)
01-20-2011 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
01-20-2011 9:06 AM
A NEW THEORY ABOUT EVOLUTION.
NEURAL SYSTEM IN A NEW ROLE, AS AN EVOLUTION’S SUPERVISOR-MEDIATOR
According to many scientists direct interaction between environment and organisms is a continuous and essential process of evolution.
My work, only theoretical with no any supportive lab data, is about this: if and how information in multi-cellular level affects genome, what are the types of it, what are the specific characteristics of the empathetically or through intelligent communication transferred information and the role of neural system as regards this transfer and in evolution process in general. All these above are functioning on the basic assumption that nature is innately intelligent.
Also: if and how these new concepts are consistent with known established facts as random mutations and natural selection.
Due to my qualifications restrictions, I must state, that I can’t present any hard lab work and other supporting evidence about my ideas. My views are based on others work, on logic and deductions while observing real facts.
I hope others more appropriate than me would think that it is worthwhile to spent time and effort to do the research work.
My base is the work that had been done by McClintock, J Shapiro, B Wright and other scientists in epigenetics.
Studies on epigenetics have unquestionably shown that organisms interact directly -not only just indirectly thanks to natural selection- through information during life span with environment in their way to evolution, at least as regards phenotype. Specifically this interaction has been proved in multi-cellular organismsit reaches up at least to epigenome area and causes phenotypic and in some cases long lasting and inherited genotype changes.
On the other hand wide spread search in the level of the one cell organisms on DNA, had established new mechanisms ( genetic natural engineering systems, slicing, horizontal gene transfer, increase in mutation rates, de-repression, ect ) in DNA regulation as ways and means for such a deep effect of environmental factors on genome, in cooperation with established old mechanisms (Mentelian genetics, random mutations, natural selection), so to produce changes that can be inherited.
. There is also a well recognized phenomenon in biology in multi-cellular level. ( Sara via and Russell Lande), where phenotype and genotype interact with each other to produce variants of the organism that are subjected to natural selection.
At this level all mentioned studies, show that there is a mechanism of information transfer from external or internal (somatic) environment to genome area. Otherwise how chicken could feel stress and how this stress could get known by genome so t o create the instinct of foraging? Also how, in Baldwin effect, could offspring learn new skills? From Wikipedia I quote: “The paper (by Baldwin) proposed a mechanism for specific selection for general learning ability. Selected offspring would tend to have an increased capacity for learning new skills rather than being confined to genetically coded, relatively fixed abilities. In effect, it places emphasis on the fact that the sustained behavior of a species or group can shape the evolution of that.”
These skills have to be learnt by other animals. How could that be done, or how in the first place these new skills could ever be learnt? Obviously this mechanism is served by neural tissue. It is almost self evident.
In one cell organisms organism-environment interaction is succeeded by substances. In multi-cellular level, due to increased complexity and the greater distances, information has to travel from environment to genome, I think we are ultimately obliged to put in the picture the neural system, as it’s known properties as a messenger, makes it the best choice among other tissues. Of course the old way of direct substance affect on one-cell, which is both genetic and somatic in function, could be sustained in some cases at this level as well, but I think in the vast majority of them the relative work is done by neural tissue, through again the help of appropriate substances.
As scientists only lately have focused on direct organism-environment interaction, hard evidence of any tissue, and particularly the neural one, energetic participation on evolution process in multi-cell organisms, does not exist. Evolution of neural system had been widely studied, while the opposite, namely neural system’s role on evolution is entirely ignored.
My hypothesis is basically a type of Lamarckism. Evolution is information and function driven. Function imposed by environment directed needs is in essence a result of interaction between animal and environment. We always should keep in mind that information acts on organisms that have the inner force and intelligence and also the mechanisms to use it, with the scope to conserve life. These mechanisms are of course the result of long evolution process.
This intelligence, being a part of nature’s general innate intelligence, makes them able to use all established ways and mechanisms, as e.g engineering systems, slicing, horizontal transfer, de-repression, genetic drift, even random mutations and natural selection ect to their road to evolution.
On this generally Lamarckian frame I introduce the concepts of empathy, intelligent communication, the “thinking” neural system and their role on evolution:
Empathy is a hard wired function in human brains and a well known function between humans but not only to them. At present it is known that rodents feel empathy. Most probably it is wide spread to all animals.
We should discern the empathic type of information from the empathic mechanism in neural system that serves this information type transfer. Being this mechanism hard wired and occupying such wide area in brain it implies that it is an essential and very useful function much more than it had been thought to be up to date. I propose this function is participating substantially in evolution procedure.
From the number of scientific works on the empathy matter we can conclude that we are at the beginnings of a road that promises a lot.
Empathy was long ago known to happen, especially between mother and offspring, but new light is put on it now. Mirror neurons existence, being part of the empathetic mechanism, substantiates its significance. There is quite a number of works about empathy evolution, but not any on empathy’s role on evolution; as nobody had thought that it could have any importance to evolution, it is understandable why not any relative research exists. But of course its significance has yet to be proved. It will be no surprise to me, if these mirror cells would be found in future to lower animals as well and this could be my theory’s falsification area.
According to my theory empathy applies to any living organism with neural system from lower to the higher ones. (To those with no neural tissue empathy is not needed, as its role is served directly by chemicals and hormones).
In animals with neural system, according to my hypothesis, it is a basic mechanism that transfers emotionally burdened knowledge (stress) to genome.
This knowledge starts as simple information coming from environment, is modified properly inside neural system,( eg. is being “colored” by emotion, as it always has survival value for organism), and it ends up to genome, in a repeated fashion, over long periods of time and over many generations. It is an established fact that stress environmental situations affect genome. This repeated action over long periods of time on the same loci on DNA, which they can be in both, epigenome and genome areas, has as an end result, the appearance of either phenotypic or genotypic changes. This is succeeded through energizing of appropriate natural genetic engineering systems, gene transfer, slicing de-repression, increasing random mutations rate ect. These changes could be or not enough to animal’s surviving, and some can be deleterious, but some they may pave the way to somehow directed mutations.
In any case, even in the case of altogether random mutation the phenotype changes interact with genotypic changes produced by mutations, so to result in new animal variants to the needed direction, which are subjected to natural selection.
As this affect is exercised over a wide number of subjects of species at about the same time, we have wide spread population genetic changes of similar nature. So there are following phenotype or genotype changes, not only to individuals but also to wide populations.
Simple communication between organism and environment is taking place in one cell level organisms, plants and other multi-cellular beings, (where chemicals and hormones play the role of nervous tissue ), or even in higher ones and man himself, when organism is subjected to a type of direct physical experience from environment (e.g.light, temperature lack of food).
In case when “environment” is a member of same species, parents, siblings or other, then we have an act of knowledge transfer through paradigm and a function of teaching process. In this case I call it an intelligent type of communication.
It is clearly seen in higher organisms with well formed central neural system. It acts between parents and offspring, between older and younger members of same families, and between members of same species and usually in cooperation with empathy. It passes information through repeated teaching and paradigm so useful knowledge to be learnt, which has been acquired by a member. As, thus passed knowledge of same nature is transferred repeatedly over long periods of time, from generation to generation, it can have, like empathy, same permanent result on at least epigenome, but very probably on genome too, though not so intense and fast acting as pure empathy. This mechanism is very important to instinct formation. It is also useful to enhance appearance of deep seeded instinctive behavior.
Empathy and intelligent communication are important factors for evolution and work together with old known mechanisms (random mutations, natural selection, ect.). I think, specifically empathy, they are the missing link of sequence of facts, which exists in the process that takes place and starts from information coming from environment and ends to species evolution, which makes Lamarckism more probable; they make possible that genome can change after life span experiences.
Empathy and intelligent communication affect genome or epigenome at targeted areas. These areas, as regards genome become sensitive and prone to mutations and other DNA changes, so randomness role is significantly reduced.
. Both in coordination are working in instinct formation. It is a well known fact the difficulty Darvinism and its newer branches have to explain instinct formation.
Neural system and evolution.
All above mentioned processes take place inside neural system. There is no question about it. Information staff, after it had entered inside neural system is not just being transferred by it. This information is being coded, valuated, “emotionally colored” and memorized. This means that neural system takes an energetic role in the process, during individual’s life span. It chooses between information that is useful to survival or not, understands dangers, threats, learns from mistakes or successes, creates tendencies, chooses actions of response, finds solutions, plans ect. In parallel it decides what to transfer to genome, or transfer through empathy to other members of the species and so again to genome. I think it is a functional extension or complementary to genome.
By using organism’s own abilities it overcomes difficulties. Otherwise, if the problem is not faced, evolution mechanism gets started.
This applies to both lower and upper scale animals.
It seems that neural cells are intermediating between environment- somatic cells and sperm/ova in an interactive way.
It is a matter of investigation if neural system by itself, without the intervention of DNA, can cause the so called “soft inheritance”. There may be instances where N.S. acts on its own, triggered by environment, to initiate an evolution process, which most probably refers to phenotype or macroevolution in close interaction with microevolution and DNA changes.
It is evident that according to my theory neural system’s role is crucial. Neural tissue isn’t just another tissue amongst others. It ‘thinks”, “supervises”, “decides” “dictates” evolution, and (on the end) life itself together as a supplement with DNA. All these need a central nervous system; the more information it receives the more complicated it becomes.
As we know the existence of “intelligence” of single cells and DNA,
(according to Shapiro and many others), as well as their “decision making” ability, we shouldn’t deny the above abilities to neural system.
We are not obliged to see any “intention” or Supernatural intervention behind these functions by neural system. It may act doing what is programmed to do by its own evolution. Development of “thinking” neural system is a direct result of the infinite flow of incoming and outgoing amount of information. It would be a natural paradox, if there wasn’t any such development. It is the outcome of neural system’s own evolution.
Neural system is the material expression of nature’s distilled wisdom needed for successful functioning of a complex multi-cellular organism, an evolution model from basic DNA intelligence to the complexity of higher organic life.
N.S is, I think, the appropriate place where from, according to Yablonka, orders for inherited “soft” changes could come, besides genome.
Neural system’s intervention does not mean that evolution takes a short cut road. The procedure remains slow anyway, as this intervention is in itself a slow process and as more or less random mutations and natural selection have not been cancelled out.
Information, knowledge, learning.
It may be noticed that I use the words “information”, “learning”, “knowledge”, intermingled in somehow a loose way. Obviously these words correlate to each other. But in the context of my theory they have some differences.
Information is the simple external or internal stimuli that neuron cells accept.
Learning is the process that takes place inside the whole neural system, after stimulus had met organism, in order information to be transferred, memorized, validated, coded, emotionally colored ect..
Knowledge is the end result of the two previous functions. If it has some survival value to organism, then it is the type of information that advances towards genome area, and the one that that mainly can be transferred through empathy and intelligent communication.
This is a schematic division. In fact an interexchange between them happens all time.
In humans knowledge represents the most significant aspect of life. In other higher organisms it plays an important role also. But through empathy plays equally important role in lower animals too. Is it logical to exclude this so rich and wide spread function, as knowledge is from the process of evolution and thus of life? This does not seem to be in accord to nature’s economy law.
Although evolution of learning had thoroughly been studied by scientists, little work has been done on learning’s effect on evolution. This was a consequence of Darwinism and later by current evolution theory’s denial of the possibility of knowledge transfer from environment to genome over successive generations.
So according to my theory, when we talk about evolution in multi-cellular organisms we mean firstly and mostly of neural changes caused by new information, new knowledge new feelings. It cannot be any phenotypic or genotypic change, before a relative neuronal change takes place.
These changes in neural system lead at the same time to its own evolution.
As a non biologist I couldn’t be ever able to present any such mechanisms. What I am proposing is only a general theory or hypothesis with assertions that should be tested against scientific facts.
I think I can state that facts found by many researchers on epigenetics, that detect relevant mechanisms working in epi-genome or genome level, and specially those recent ones by James Shapiro and B. Wright do fit well with my theory. These works give to my theory the basic mechanisms, surely not the whole of them. More knowledge obviously is needed.
What my theory proposes as a specific mechanism is that information by empathy and intelligent communication is transferred again and again over long periods of time, with about the same content and so probably on the same DNA areas and not only during one organism’s life span, after being modified by neural system.
As regards the mechanism of nervous system effect on genome or how neural system ,as an extension of DNA, can order and succeed an inherited change on phenotype, I don’t think there is any work up to now, as the idea of this new role of nervous system on evolution is altogether a new one. This lack of relevant research work it seems to me entirely paradoxical, as experience, defined as a neurological event, is an old and widely known concept with known evolutional implications.
As I think these new concepts make information driven evolution case much stronger, I expect a growing interest and more relative supporting findings on this matter.
Random mutations concept as regards fitness is quite compatible with my hypothesis: information affects genome by paving the way, before and after the fact of random mutation towards a specific direction. So mutations are random by themselves, but incorporated in a system tending to preserve life. On the other hand natural selection is helped to be a faster and more productive procedure by appropriate phenotypic and other parallel changes and interactions between phenotype and genotype. So any harmonically acquired traits by random mutations and epigenetic changes, after being interacting with each other, and after the clearing job by natural selection, can be inherited.
After above generally outlined hypothetical all round theory I am faced with many questions: (very probably there are others as well and more others will arise in future):
1. Is there a need for a new evolution theory? What the new theory can offer more than current theory in understanding evolution and life?
2. Am I legitimized to base my hypothesis on the idea of nature’s innate intelligence?
3. On which rules had neural system evolved?
Is “thinking” ability of neural system and its regulative action over evolution a result of its own evolution? Then, somebody could ask on which laws and on which mechanisms these functions could be established. Was neural tissue its own “supervisor” on its way to evolution, particularly in relation to its above mentioned abilities, or it obeys to other different laws? Is nervous system generally subject to evolution in the same manner as other tissues?
4. Are there different types of information regarding evolution?
5. Are there other different mechanisms of this information transfer to genome apart from neural system?
6. Where does my theory stand on the micro and macroevolution debate?
7. Can we now explain and better understand instinct formation?
8. On which grounds can I propose that empathy can have any affects on genome?
Is there a need for a new evolution theory? What the new theory can offer more than current theory in understanding evolution and life?
I am maybe not the appropriate person to judge the validity or not of
Modern Synthesis Theory. But more and more works from many directions are questioning its basics dogmas. According to Jablonka
“…..Many biologists feel that the foundations of the evolutionary paradigm that was constructed during the 1930s and 1940s …. and has dominated Western views of evolution for the last 60 years are crumbling, and that the construction of a new evolutionary paradigm is underway…”.
(Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis
Eva Jablonka1 and Marion J. Lamb).
My theory is in line with these new trends and I think it gives answers to many questions, that M.S has well known difficulties.(i.e. instinct formation, geological findings, randomness as cause of life) and it is a all round about evolution theory.
Also M.S. is ignoring the obvious fact that life (and so evolution) is based on intercommunication and infinite information exchange between living forms, which in itself means violation of economy and continuity natural laws.
. Am I legitimized to base my hypothesis on the idea of nature’s innate intelligence and what I mean by it?
Intelligence: I don’t give it the original meaning of the word (namely, to choose between contingent alternatives). What I really mean is: in response to environmental and other factors, a naturally inside organism pre-existing mechanism, and by force of chemistry and physics, causes changes in the genome. So I think of it as a mechanism, but not “intelligence” in any traditional sense. Of course we have then the eternal question to face here: how was this made? But this is a second level question.
I don’t think there is any need to find proofs for existence of such “intelligence.” It is so abundant around us. It doesn’t necessarily imply a Designer, but it can’t also of course preclude it.
J. Shapiro talks about such intelligence inside cells.
From Guenter Albrecht-Buehler and Robert Laughlin Rea work on CELL INTELLIGENCE I quote: “My experimental work during the past 30 years suggests that single tissue cells have their own data- and signal-processing capacities that help them control their movements and orientation…. Cells can see…measure space and time and must be able to derive abstract data from physical signals…”
On which rules had neural system evolved?
If neural tissue has role on evolution, then somebody could ask on which laws and on which mechanisms these functions (“thinking”, “deciding” could be established? Was neural tissue its own “supervisor” on its way to evolution, particularly in relation to its above mentioned abilities, or it obeys to other different laws? Is nervous system generally subject to evolution in the same manner as other tissues?
I could say: neural tissue evolution follows the rules of one cell
organism evolution. At this level only substances regulate evolution.
Are there different types of information regarding evolution?
Before going any further, I suppose I need to define what I mean by information and information unit.
Information unit: indicates the simplest external or internal signal that can be accepted by sensory neural cell.
Information: the total of signals that give an idea of what the environment is. For more details it is enough to look Shapiro’s relative reference at his ‘A 21st Century View of evolution’.
There are two types of information in relation to evolution: The one that does not directly reaches genome (A) and the other that it does (B).
The first one represents the vast majority of information. It is referring to every day’s life experience with no direct effect on evolution.
The second type (B) is divided in two subgroups: that coming through direct experience of each individual, separately (B1) and that coming from other members through empathic transfer mechanism (B2).
The B1 subgroup: it contains information always important to animal’s survival, burdened with more or less stress. Its source is the direct animal experience through direct contact with environment (external and internal) and through intelligence communication and it relates to epigenetic characteristics (phenotype plasticity, function driven changes) for each individual separately. If the stress it causes is intense enough, the information can energize the individual’s relative about empathy central neural system areas and mechanism, so to spread all over the community through the mirror cells. At the same time inside the individual that is subjected and is suffering the specific experience B1 merges with group B2. In any case we shouldn’t think of these groups and subgroups as clear cut entities; there is always a merging between them.
The B2 subgroup: it contains only empathetically being transferred information type and probably is one of the most important factors in species evolution. The reason for this assertion is that empathic information has special characteristics in relation to information transferred as usually, through sense organs brain and nerves, to genome. These characteristics are:
1. It spreads the same moment and on the same intense degree to a wide population, so evolution relates not individuals but populations.
2. It acts on the same loci on DNA, as it is repeated with the same scenario over not only during life span, but over many successive generations and in increasing frequency, as the number of animal community increases.
3. It is hard wired in brain. This hard wiring and the wide area given in brain to this function, it implies this function has a serious work to do. Empathy’s proved presence in lower animals as rodents and probable existence of mirror cells in them, I suppose, they can’t be explained by empathy’s up to date restricted accepted usefulness.
4. It is always burdened with the outmost of stress.
I must note that by empathy I don’t refer to the restricted meaning of human empathy, but to whole multi-cellular life and animals with even elementary neural system.
These characteristics make B2 information subtype able to act on deep genome structures faster the B1.
The concept of empathic information transfer together with intelligent communication fills a gap in Lamarckism. Now, the belief that life span information cannot have any effect on genome, once thought as insuperable barrier, by epigenetics studies and specifically by the introduction of the concept of empathic information transfer and its enhanced significance in evolution, Lamarckism is being put in first scientific line.
An example: When a deer is chased by a lion, she accepts type B1 information that is transferred burdened by intense emotion to genome or to its equivalent portion of neural system. But due to intension of stress, empathy is transferring at the same moment her feelings to the other members of the family or deer community (group B2 information) and it is this type of information that has deep evolutional value. Apart from it being transferred up to individual’s genome, most importantly it is transferred to genome of the members of the community every time a deer is chased by a lion. This scenario is repeated over thousands of times.
In instinct formation both (A and B) types of information are used, as instincts are made by highly elaborated and integrated knowledge and based not so much on stress conditions, as in life’s need to be functionally well organized and in line with its preservation.
Are there other mechanisms of this information transfer to genome besides neural system?
One cell organisms:
Feeding substance or the lack of it, or irritants met on environment stand for sources of information. This type of information causes production of chemicals that lead to simple reaction of parts of the cell (genome, natural genetic engineering systems, de-repression, HGT ect.). So we have here in away a mode of learning arc, where neural system is substituted by chemicals or the above engineering systems.
But even on this level of life we can see that cells have already mechanisms of memory, decision making etc (see J. Shapiro), namely the sperms of the neural system we see in higher animals.
Plants: Chemicals, hormones, pollen ect.
Where does my theory stand on the micro and macroevolution debate?
As information flow to genome or peri-genome is continuous, macro- and micro-evolution are taking place at the same time. They have different loci of action, rhythm and end result, but are related.
.Microevolution is paved in its way by macroevolution epigenetic changes, which “direct”, in a way, random mutations to specific direction.
These two kinds of evolution are parallel, intermingled and interacting in a double direction fashion and evolution in general is the end result of the combined action of both of them.
It seems here my theory diverts from Shapiro’s view about macro- and micro-evolution. He thinks that macro-evolution is taking place long ago before micro-evolution puts the final tunes.
7. Can we now better understand instinct formation?
It is known that present theory has great difficulty in explaining instinct formation.
Darwinists treat instincts as complex reflexes that were made up of inherited unlearnt units and therefore subject to natural selection. According to my theory instincts are based on learned and inherited patterns of behavior and are subject to natural selection.
As their formation takes place mainly inside neural system, their formation procedure takes place according to this system’s characteristics. Because of very frequent repetitions of their learnt element, they became reflective.
In any instinct we have the stimulus, the nervous system’s mediation and the response. In first place, this arc is repeatedly taking place during individual’s life, repeated innumerable times over succeeding generations, while on the same time its context is transferred through empathy and intelligent communication to next generations, where it is reinforced and enriched, and after many generations is embodied to genomes, to become permanent, but still being able to further evolution.
. Controversies about what is the nature of instincts, which are instincts and which are not, how they are inherited and so on, now do not arise.
There is a gradual evolvement of instinctive behavior from more to less of reflective activity-features and of less to more of intellect’s intervention, as we go from lower to higher animals. One can think that even in one cell organisms there are the sperm of instincts: they are the chemical reactions to environment irritants and to lack of food.
It seems to me all difficulties met by scientists in studying instinct issue stemmed from their rigid deny of any possibility that learned material-experience could ever be inherited by DNA or neural system change.
By my theory, we can understand and explain how animals have developed such compound instinctive abilities and tactics about defiance, attacking ect, survival in general, where natural selection and mutations are alone, in my opinion, very poor to give us convincing answers. How, for example, can they explain the ability of a species of crow to use special longish rugged leafs of specific plant, with their incisions having the appropriate direction, so to take out insects from their deep hole-nests?
Now, knowledge transference through empathy and intelligent communication are the key words for understanding the formation of these learnt and inherited instinctual and intelligent actions.
To be more precise: how my theory does explain turtle baby’s ability, for example, to find his way to seaside? My answer is:
In their long phylogenetic history of turtle evolution, their ancestors had learnt, over long periods by direct experience intelligent communication and empathy the value to their survival of this ability for themselves, their babies and the members of the community at start. Then it was passed to their DNA and then to baby turtles of today. Of course the process had taken millions of years to reach the present state, and mutations, random or not, natural selection, gene flow, genetic drifts, in conjunction with most important factor of all, e.g. learning, had played their role.
As I have said before, in instinct formation both types of information (A, B) used, a function simply based on life’s need to get well organized and in line with its perservance, and not so much, on stress related situations.
This function maybe is related with wide brain areas (silent brain areas) not been identified as to what their function are .
Are geological findings consistent with these new concepts?
Punctuated equilibrium and stasis fit well with my hypothesis, as, according to environment – organisms interaction, great environmental changes intensify changes in organisms, while periods of stasis lead to their stability.
Are random mutations, and natural selection consistent with my hypothesis and what is their role in evolution?
These basic Darwinian concepts remain essential tools in evolution. In spite of any “directionism” implied by the “thinking” neural system and the natural engineering systems ect, random mutations are a fact and so it is natural selection. Randomness of mutations as regards to fitness remains in action, but now is thought that it is a mechanism used by nature for its needs and its ultimate scope of preservation of life. The same applies to natural selection. So mutations can be: entirely random as regards fitness, semi-directed (by this term I mean mutations enhanced in rate or facilitated to happen in special loci, or otherwise), or entirely directed; but all of them are really directed in regard to life’s preservation (or death). To some fitness and life preservation could sound as tautology. Surely life’s preservation is a much wider term than fitness.
So according to my theory, when we talk about evolution in multi-cellular organisms we mean firstly and mostly of neural changes caused by new information, new knowledge, new feelings. It cannot be any phenotypic or genotypic change, before a relative neuronal change takes place. This of course means that natural selection and mutations role to evolution is reduced, but not at all cancelled.
These changes in neural system lead at the same time to its own evolution. The more information load it deals, the more complex it becomes.
After all these above I think I am entitled to speak of the neuro-genic factor in evolution and of neuro-genic evolution.
Sometimes I feel, all I had being saying on this work are not in any case new and nothing more than common sense known to anybody.
Accepting all ways and types of evolution (information and function driven, through altogether random mutations but also through directed mutations, natural selection, gradual and in jumps changing) it seems as I am trying to satisfy all trends. But this is not my purpose. It is my theory that leads me there. As my theory is based on nature’s “intelligence”, it is logical for nature to incorporate all these, as it couldn’t ignore any possibility that might be used for its advantage.
Bernhard, R. 1967. Heresy in the halls of biology: mathematicians question Darwinism. Sci. Res. (New York)
Dobzhansky, T. 1950. The genetic basis of evolution. Sci. Am. 182:
Harvey F. Lodish (2008). Molecular cell biology.. St. Martin's Press. 2010.
Frans de Waal The Age of Empathy (Harmony Books, 2009).,
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added more blank lines. This message is very similar but not identical to message 1.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 4 by Admin, posted 01-20-2011 9:06 AM|| ||Admin has acknowledged this reply|