Evolution In Action

Technology, computers, sciences, mysteries and phenomena of all kinds, etc., etc. all here at The Loresraat!!

Moderator: Vraith

User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 62038
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Contact:

Evolution In Action

Post by Avatar »

Well, here's one for the folks who always ask if we've ever seen evolution at work. It seems that the reason we haven't may not be because it's too slow...sometimes, it may be too fast. Amazing huh? :lol:
"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches, Study Says

Mason Inman
for National Geographic News
July 14, 2006

Evolution may sometimes happen so fast that it's hard to catch in action, a new study of Galápagos finches suggests.

Researchers from New Jersey's Princeton University have observed a species of finch in Ecuador's Galápagos Islands that evolved to have a smaller beak within a mere two decades.

Surprisingly, most of the shift happened within just one generation, the scientists say.

In 1982 the large ground finch arrived on the tiny Galápagos island of Daphne, just east of the island of San Salvador.

Since then the medium ground finch, a long-time Daphne resident, has evolved to have a smaller beak—apparently as a result of direct competition with the larger bird for food.

Evolutionary theory had previously suggested that competition between two similar species can drive the animals to evolve in different directions.
But until now the effect had never been observed in action in the wild.
In the new study Princeton's Peter and Rosemary Grant closely tracked the two related species for decades.

Their results appear in this week's issue of the journal Science.

Changing Beaks, Changing Diet

For both finch species, the researchers note, feeding is a trade-off between effort and payoff.

The birds generally prefer to eat larger seeds, which are harder for their nutcracker-like beaks to break open but hold a bigger reward inside.

The bigger the bird's beak, the easier it is to crack open the seeds' coatings.

The already smaller-beaked medium ground finch couldn't keep up with the newly arrived large ground finch, which is about twice as big and dominates feeding grounds.

Apparently in response, the medium ground finch evolved to have an even smaller beak, making the species more adept at eating small seeds that didn't interest the larger finch.

"This is a phenomenon known as character displacement," Peter Grant said.

"It is a very important one in studies of evolution, because it shows that species interact for food and undergo evolutionary change which minimizes further competition."

The researchers say they have seen other types of evolution in action in Galápagos finches before.

But this was the strongest shift they've seen in their 33 years of study, the scientists say.

The Galápagos Islands' 14 species of finches all evolved from one ancestral species, which arrived from the South American mainland about two to three million years ago.

That original species branched out into many others, with each one specialized for different roles.

The woodpecker finch, for example, has evolved to the point where it can drill holes in trees, while the vampire finch drinks other birds' blood.

Ironically, naturalist Charles Darwin missed signs of evolution among these finches during his 1831 visit to the Galápagos.

Only later, with the help of other collectors and scientists, was he able to see how evolution was responsible for the variety of finches.

Since then, the 1982 arrival of the large ground finch on Daphne is the first known instance of a new finch arriving in the Galápagos.

"The event we observed is the only one that we know about, the only establishment of a new breeding population anywhere in the archipelago," Peter Grant says.

"Once this happened before our eyes, we realized we had a very unusual and potentially very important event to follow."

The two bird species immediately began competing for larger seeds.
The situation reached a tipping point when a severe drought hit the island in 2003 and 2004.

Both finches suffered, since there were far fewer seeds overall. The dominant large ground finch ate most of the available large seeds.
"With the near removal of the supply of large seeds, the large-beaked birds [among] the medium ground finches did not have enough food to survive," Peter Grant said.

"They died at a faster rate than the small-beaked members of the population."

The effects of competition are apparent when this event is compared to a drought in 1977, before the large ground finch arrived on the island, the researchers argue.

During the earlier drought the medium ground finches' average beak size actually increased.

Textbook Classic

Jonathan Losos is an evolutionary ecologist at Harvard University in Boston, Massachusetts, who was not involved with the Grants' work.
"This study will be an instant textbook classic," he said.

"The most intriguing aspect of the study is its nuanced understanding of how and when character displacement occurs," Losos added.

"It supports suggestions by the Grants and others that [natural] selection will be most intense during crunch times."

David Pfennig at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill agrees that the study has important implications.

For Pfennig, the study's greatest surprise was "the apparent speed with which the character displacement occurs—within a single year!"

Usually we think of evolution as being a slow grind, he says.

But, Pfennig added, the study suggests that evolution due to competition between closely related species "paradoxically may often occur so rapidly that we may actually miss the process taking place."
--A
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by wayfriend »

The Fayetteville Tree!! The Instant of Reprimorialization!! The "Engine of the Evoloo"!!

Please come in, Gojiro, bridger of Gaps, linker of Lines, nexus of Beam and Bunch, defender of the Evolloo! Please come in, please heed this humble servant's plea!
.
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by wayfriend »

Okay, call me "thread killer". Everything I touch these days ...

This was a reference to the novel Gojiro, in which Komodo, the Coma Boy, tries to discover the Instant of Reprimpordialization, which is basically when a set of traits becomes incorportated into the genome and a new species is "born". He does this by studying a large jar of chickadees, a closed system called the the Fayetteville Tree, in which new species of chickadees seem to spring forth spontaneously every so often. No matter how patiently he watched, he never seemed to be able to catch the Instant.
Reprimordialization -- it was Budd Hazard's central point, and his most perplexing. According to the long silent muse, Reprimordialization was "the engine of the Evolloo", a continuous, unending series of "invisible instants" during which Beamic energy cleaved to create new Bunches, thereby springing forth "more life, different and unique".
An interesting novel if you love the novels about giant radioactive lizards exploring the theories of speciation.
.
User avatar
Menolly
A Lowly Harper
Posts: 24184
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 12:29 am
Location: Harper Hall, Fort Hold, Northern Continent, Pern...
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 15 times
Contact:

Post by Menolly »

This is a very interesting finding for two reasons. First, it goes against the mainstream view that evolution takes thousands of generations to show demonstrable changes and supports, instead, the views of the school of Punctuated Equilibrium, who posit that species remain essentially stable unless and until a significant change in their environment occurs, at which time they change very rapidly and leave almost no evidence of intermediary forms being observed in the fossil record. Second, it brings up a VERY significant question about Darwin's original findings. If the finch can change the size of it's beak within a dozen breeding seasons, then differences in beak size do NOT demonstrate the theory of "descent with modification" as Darwin orginially intended it, and instead supports a kind of Neo-Lamarckian view, in which development of a functional organ is dictated by the environmental niche the organism occupies, and can be in some manner passed on to offspring through an unknown (i.e., non-DNA) selection mechanism. I will be watching these developments with great interest.

Paul, Ph.D., abd (History of Science)
Image
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 25488
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 57 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

I don't know much about the theory of evolution, but it seems to me there's two possibilities:

1) All of the medium ground finches had a certain sized beak, and there was no recessive gene for a smaller beak. When the large ground finch arrived, there was a mutation in the medium ground finch's beak, giving them smaller beaks, just in the nick of time. Since they couldn't compete for the larger nuts, their smaller beaks flourished.

2) Some of the medium ground finches had smaller beaks than the rest of the medium ground finches, because of (I assume?) a recessive gene for the smaller beak. When the large ground finches took all the food from the medium ground finches, the mediums who already had smaller beaks flourished, and the recessive gene for the small beak became the only gene for beak size.

I assume #1 would be something of a miracle. The exact mutation coming just when they needed it to avoid extinction? So #2 is probably right. Isn't this the same thing that was seen with those moths when pollution was heavy?

Am I understanding things correctly? Are there other possibilities?
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon

Image
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19845
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

Menolly wrote: If the finch can change the size of it's beak within a dozen breeding seasons, then differences in beak size do NOT demonstrate the theory of "descent with modification" as Darwin orginially intended it, and instead supports a kind of Neo-Lamarckian view, in which development of a functional organ is dictated by the environmental niche the organism occupies, and can be in some manner passed on to offspring through an unknown (i.e., non-DNA) selection mechanism.
Paul, Ph.D., abd (History of Science)
I've always been a little sympathetic toward the Lamarckian view. I think there might be in interplay between consciousness and genes that is not yet understood. I think consciousness is the basic mystery that science cannot yet get a handle upon either at the level of physics or at the level of biology. We see its paradoxical implications in quantum mechanics, and I believe we will see more of it in the science of evolution.

I know this sounds a little mystical, and probably not at all what you are suggesting, Paul, but I just wanted to let you know that there are others who share your interest.

I'm not at all saying that consciousness transcends science, or that science won't eventually unlock its mysteries (and I'm certainly not saying that consciousness is independent of matter), but just that we need another paradigm revolution--as Thomas Kuhn might say--to grasp it.

This is a little off-topic, but I'm reading a fascinating book right now by Roger Penrose, SHADOWS OF THE MIND, in which he argues that both hard and soft AI can neither accurately account for, nor even simulate, what our minds are doing because consciousness is fundamentally noncomputational. His argument is an interesting take on Godel's Theorem. His point is that current science cannot even model what is happening in our mind because cognitive science uses as its paradigm the computer. Since we can understand mathematical truths which transcend any possible formalization within an axiomatic system or set of algorithms (as Godel's Theorem proves), then we are demonstrably doing something that no computer can ever do even in principle--since computers are just universal Turing machines. Hence, our understanding is proven in this particular instance to be noncomputational. Penrose extends this proof to conscious understanding in general, but I haven't read that far yet. Maybe I'll start a new thread once I'm done.
User avatar
The Laughing Man
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9033
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 4:56 pm
Location: LMAO

Post by The Laughing Man »

Fist and Faith wrote:I don't know much about the theory of evolution, but it seems to me there's two possibilities:

1) All of the medium ground finches had a certain sized beak, and there was no recessive gene for a smaller beak. When the large ground finch arrived, there was a mutation in the medium ground finch's beak, giving them smaller beaks, just in the nick of time. Since they couldn't compete for the larger nuts, their smaller beaks flourished.

2) Some of the medium ground finches had smaller beaks than the rest of the medium ground finches, because of (I assume?) a recessive gene for the smaller beak. When the large ground finches took all the food from the medium ground finches, the mediums who already had smaller beaks flourished, and the recessive gene for the small beak became the only gene for beak size.

I assume #1 would be something of a miracle. The exact mutation coming just when they needed it to avoid extinction? So #2 is probably right. Isn't this the same thing that was seen with those moths when pollution was heavy?

Am I understanding things correctly? Are there other possibilities?
perhaps a natural influence instigated the appearance of the recessive gene? like they are kept on file for circumstantial access and implementation...finding out what a recessive gene is, and why those finches had them is definitely curious...

to echo maliks sentiment somewhat, the physical expression of conscious energy has been compared to a viral process of renewal and adaptability, the important inference is that one can be in control of this "virus that is us" and recreate whatever one's conscious will can envision.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 62038
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Contact:

Post by Avatar »

I'm not sure that it necessarily goes against the view that evolution can take a long time, but it certainly demonstrates that it is possible for it to occur (relatively) instantly when it becomes necessary.

The article seems to support Fists view:
"With the near removal of the supply of large seeds, the large-beaked birds [among] the medium ground finches did not have enough food to survive," Peter Grant said.

"They died at a faster rate than the small-beaked members of the population."
In effect, it looks like the larger beaked medium finches were naturally selected out. The smaller-beaked ones were the ones who survived, and bred with each other, hence producing more smaller-beaked medium finches.

The Lamarckian view certainly explains the paucity of "intermediate" fossil records though. I'm not sure if we can assume that all evolutionary changes happen so rapidly though. Although, many small rapid changes eventually add up to big ones.

Regardless though very interesting. And good posts.

(Tell me Menolly...do you volunteer this stuff to Paul? Or does he ask if there's anything interesting? Next time, tell him to join up and see for himself... ;) (Or give him the Chrons to read? )

--A
User avatar
Xar
Lord
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:41 pm
Location: Watching over the Pantheon...

Post by Xar »

I read the article too... according to the scientists involved, the "small beak" gene already existed among the birds; it was simply positively selected when a crisis arose and the larger-beaked finches were at a disadvantage. So it's Darwinian mutation, not Lamarckian: in Lamarck's view, finches should have had uniformly large beaks, and evolved the small beak when faced with the crisis, whereas in Darwin's, some had small beaks and they were favored by the conditions.

The "spontaneous genetic mutation" theory doesn't really work on such small time scales, because the chance of a mutation hitting the beak size gene (out of tens of thousands) and producing a (useful) smaller beak within 12 generations is very, very low.

By the way, remember that this is microevolution we're talking about, not macroevolution or speciation: the small-beaked finches are still finches, and can freely mate with large-beaked finches. Still, it is definitely proof of evolution at work.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 62038
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Contact:

Post by Avatar »

That was pretty much how I read it...that it was a case of natural selection.

--A
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19845
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

Xar wrote:By the way, remember that this is microevolution we're talking about, not macroevolution or speciation: the small-beaked finches are still finches, and can freely mate with large-beaked finches. Still, it is definitely proof of evolution at work.
Do evolutionary scientists actually use these terms? I thought it was a way for creationists to deny evolution in general by conceding that "microevolution" happens, but that is merely adaptation, not evolution. After all, if you're going by Darwin's theory of gradual change, there really isn't macroevolution at all. No species ever becomes an entirely different species overnight, even according to classic evolution, right?

Just illustrating my ignorance. :D

I wish I'd saved the link . . . but a few years ago I read about the discovery of a certain insect could change from having x number of legs to having 16 or 32 legs simply by altering one gene. Now what was interesting was that these legs didn't appear randomly, but appeared in pairs and at evenly spaced intervals (the insect was long like a centipede). The point was that one single, random mutation could produce large-scale, dramatic, regular effects in an organism--which ran counter to creationist claims that mutations were random, and thus mutations couldn't produce ordered results. It also seems to support what is being said here, that a single, rapid change can indeed take effect without many slow intermediary steps.
User avatar
Xar
Lord
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:41 pm
Location: Watching over the Pantheon...

Post by Xar »

Malik23 wrote:
Xar wrote:By the way, remember that this is microevolution we're talking about, not macroevolution or speciation: the small-beaked finches are still finches, and can freely mate with large-beaked finches. Still, it is definitely proof of evolution at work.
Do evolutionary scientists actually use these terms? I thought it was a way for creationists to deny evolution in general by conceding that "microevolution" happens, but that is merely adaptation, not evolution. After all, if you're going by Darwin's theory of gradual change, there really isn't macroevolution at all. No species ever becomes an entirely different species overnight, even according to classic evolution, right?

Just illustrating my ignorance. :D

I wish I'd saved the link . . . but a few years ago I read about the discovery of a certain insect could change from having x number of legs to having 16 or 32 legs simply by altering one gene. Now what was interesting was that these legs didn't appear randomly, but appeared in pairs and at evenly spaced intervals (the insect was long like a centipede). The point was that one single, random mutation could produce large-scale, dramatic, regular effects in an organism--which ran counter to creationist claims that mutations were random, and thus mutations couldn't produce ordered results. It also seems to support what is being said here, that a single, rapid change can indeed take effect without many slow intermediary steps.
Micro- and macroevolution are scientific terms; you speak of microevolution when you describe small changes, like beak size, that happen over the course of a few generations, whereas macroevolution is the whole change from one species to another. To put it another way, macroevolution is the term that covers the span of time where many instances of microevolution accumulated until they generated a new species. And we see microevolution at work all the time: consider how quickly do bacteria (I won't mention viruses because nobody's still sure whether they're alive or not) mutate when faced with different conditions - drug resistance being only one of the possibilities.

Well, as for the regular effects - insects, especially those like centipedes and worms, are made out of "sections" - rings in the case of worms, for example, or leg sections for centipedes. A centipede doesn't have, say, 50 legs: it has 25 leg sections, each of them with two legs. A mutation could change the number of leg sections the insect should develop, adding or subtracting leg sections (and therefore, leg pairs), but in any case, the new leg sections would still be evenly spaced with the old ones. The mutation simply couldn't produce chaotic results, because it simply duplicates fundamental structures.
User avatar
Menolly
A Lowly Harper
Posts: 24184
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 12:29 am
Location: Harper Hall, Fort Hold, Northern Continent, Pern...
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 15 times
Contact:

Post by Menolly »

Avatar wrote:(Tell me Menolly...do you volunteer this stuff to Paul? Or does he ask if there's anything interesting? Next time, tell him to join up and see for himself... ;) (Or give him the Chrons to read? )
Guilty as charged, sir! I keep trying to interest Paul enough in the Watch to come join, but he keeps giving one excuse after another.

I introduced Paul to Chrons and Second Chrons when we first got together, so he's a fan as well. He basically absconded my copy of Runes I got from the library one day while my back was turend, and finsihed before I did, grr...
Image
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 62038
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Contact:

Post by Avatar »

:lol: Well, I hope he feels guilty that he's making you do unnecessary work. :D (I'm not going to say don't tell him about the interesting stuff, 'cause then we might lose what little indirect participation he deigns to give... ;) )

--A
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19845
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

I introduced Paul to Chrons and Second Chrons when we first got together, so he's a fan as well. He basically absconded my copy of Runes I got from the library one day while my back was turend, and finsihed before I did, grr...
Did I hear that right? Someone on the Watch is actually reading Donaldson via a library book? That poor bestselling author! How is he going to eat?!? :D

Just teasing you. I know the guy probably has more money than I do, but I like to support my favorite author with my money. But that's just me. I'm probably naively forgetting that most of the money goes to his publishing company, anyway.
User avatar
Menolly
A Lowly Harper
Posts: 24184
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 12:29 am
Location: Harper Hall, Fort Hold, Northern Continent, Pern...
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 15 times
Contact:

Post by Menolly »

Malik23 wrote:Did I hear that right? Someone on the Watch is actually reading Donaldson via a library book? That poor bestselling author! How is he going to eat?!? :D

Just teasing you. I know the guy probably has more money than I do, but I like to support my favorite author with my money. But that's just me. I'm probably naively forgetting that most of the money goes to his publishing company, anyway.
NP. I plan to buy all of the books I love that I have read through the library system when Paul finally finishes his dissertation, gets the Ph.D., and gets a tenured job. Buying books is a luxury we do without living as a family on a funded student's income.
Image
User avatar
Menolly
A Lowly Harper
Posts: 24184
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 12:29 am
Location: Harper Hall, Fort Hold, Northern Continent, Pern...
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 15 times
Contact:

Post by Menolly »

:::apologies for double posting, but I just received Paul's replies that he wrote at 2:00 AM while working overnight:::

I am sorry for the confusion as to whom I am addressing here, but I’ve lost my formatting and will simply be addressing the content of the remarks thus far:

1.
there might be an interplay between consciousness and genes that is not yet understood
Check. Many less reputable “New Age” theorists imply or state that one can consciously alter one’s own DNA as a kind of healing modality. Although it is fairly defensible to claim that some types of conscious activity can negatively influence the immune system, and that this may have a deleterious effect on DNA repair systems, to my knowledge there is no ‘causal mechanism’ that has been accepted to explain individual variation in healing and gonadic transmission of genetic material in terms of consciousness. On the other hand, statistical models of disease and recovery cannot tell which individual with appropriate risk factors will in fact succumb or when, or why supposedly ironclad deterministic models fail to work universally but instead always require some stochastic variation.

Speaking only for myself, the coherence of my worldview requires that consciousness have a greater input into objective circumstances than is granted by science in its present state. I would go so far as to say that even what we consider fixed and unalterable features of “the real world” are directly manipulatable by consciousness properly focused and amplified.

Consider science as a form of collective consciousness manipulation; a group of individuals is compelled to assent to a series of axioms (self-evident) and logical propositions (theorems) and to validate the constructs based on these by viewing and participating in highly ritualized forms of behavior (experiments) in the presence of hierophants (authoritative scientific figures); these individuals then promulgate a worldview that accommodates the results of their experiences in highly controlled conditions among citizens at large. The typical mode of widest promulgation is through the development of a weapon based on the new theories and experimental results. Very convincing, I have no doubt.

Conversely consider the lone outsider trying to change the world by force of will. A person has an idea that something normally accepted must change. He or she decides to believe and perhaps even convinces himself/herself that the change is occurring or has occurred. What happens? The tyranny of the consensus. It turns out that just because you are the only one to know a thing, doesn’t make it true, it just makes you crazy in the eyes of everyone else. Now your job is tougher. You have to drag some more folks into your game, or your world, which you do through argument and evidence, ideally, or at least in the academic world; they resist you with entrenched views and politics, usually, or find some other arguments and evidence to combat yours. May the best idea win!

So does consciousness alter genetics, vice versa, or neither? I would say that science is waiting for some extraordinary proof, perhaps in the form of an individual or group that can alter DNA in a well-controlled experiment. I think we will have good evidence in the next ten years that genetic material is subject to very slight alterations by focused and disciplined consciousnesses over fairly long time periods, but that there is almost no feedback method by which this ability can be developed-it is not very effective in general. Once the admission that the effect is real is made, however, it should become possible to develop a new range of instruments and technologies to augment the ability to make a useful therapeutic tool, albeit one that will be decades behind direct genetic manipulation. It will probably come into play as a kind of complement to ordinary clone/gene therapy, to increase its effectiveness. Whether it can or even should be used for accelerating human evolution is another matter entirely.

2.
consciousness is fundamentally noncomputational”
Check. Far be it from me to disagree with anything Roger Penrose has to say! What I find interesting is that both computation and logic function on a binary basis: 0-1/yes-no/true-false/on-off/accept-reject. I wonder whether the problem with applying the binary analytic process to mind or consciousness studies is that its truth is non-propositional. What I mean by this is a kind of Zen progress-by-paradox (which, forgive me, is less mechanical than the Hegelian trinity of thesis-antithesis-synthesis). The aspirant or consciousness-wielder must overcome simple dualities by deeply incorporating knowledge of their inadequacy into his/her (another dual) conscious experience. This is similar but not identical to the method of learned ignorance that Cusanus proposed in the 15th century, which itself is an outgrowth of certain weaknesses in the Scholastic systems of Aquinas and Abelard. These medieval realizations that logic was inadequate to address the transcendent, a kind of prefiguring of the Kantian split, were inherently speculative and limited to the prepositional systems from which they took their cues. The idea that direct apprehension of the sacred or Being (or whatever you’d like to call it) could not only be attained regularly and rapidly but even artificially by an untrained person would not have occurred to them; only in the modern era has the possibility of mass-consciousness-raising and the systematization of transcendent experiences into a ‘realm of the known’ become possible. That this is in fact a fallacious attempt fraught with unforeseen dangers and should be abandoned in favor of strict discipleship traditions and closed mystery religions is a position that seems at least plausible on its face, although deeply unsatisfying in light of the tremendous benefits having a large-scale increase in awareness would bring to our world.

On a related note, does Goedel’s theorem actually prove that we can understand those truths that transcend any finite set of axioms, or merely that such truths must exist? Also I have heard that quite a bit of good work is being done on “proving software” that seems to indicate that some types of algorithms are open-ended, apparently capable of generating novelty.

3. What I meant about going against the standard view of evolution is the old adage that “nature makes no jumps” or ‘nonsaltationism.’ In this view, derived from nineteenth century geological uniformitarianism, evolutionary processes must take place very slowly and uniformly in order to conform with ideas about natural law in general. In essence, by Ockham’s razor, there is no reason to expect that a given process should vary in rate unless specific evidence is found that suggests it does so. This evidence, it would appear, has now been found. Of course, Gould and Margulies had proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain the gaps in fossil records for rapidly changing species several decades ago, largely without strong evidence.

As far as the mechanism of selection pressure, it is certainly too rapid for random mutation, but even for sexual-reproduction crossover mutations two decades is quite rapid. If the article says that the small-beak gene was already in place, as Xar suggests, however, it is a variation in the expression of the gene, and not necessarily in its actual code. It was probably the small-beak allele of the beak gene that was favored over the large-beak allele. This is typical in Darwinian evolution, but it is unusual to weed out a single dominating variant from a population within two decades, although this seems to be occurring in some lakes in Africa.

Finally, the macro/micro distinction is crucial here; this is why the notion that “many small rapid changes lead to big ones” ruffles so many feathers. We see species being mutually infertile and distinct; we see related forms that do not change one into another, and we see no intermediate forms in the fossil record, much of which has been reassembled in light of the very theory it purports to prove. So some folks don’t assent to macroevolution as an accurate representation of the world. In particular there are a large number of American Protestants who find their faith challenged by one or more aspects of modern science and would thus be happy to reject much of it. The irony is they can do so with very few consequences in today’s society, and they wish to have the right to pursue their understanding of the world unencumbered by modern educational systems. This is not a simple situation to resolve, as they have no competitive theory with equal standing, despite closed belief systems like ‘intelligent design’ and ‘creation science.’ On the other hand there are a very large number of evolutionary fascists who only wish to indoctrinate their subjects with the party line and dismiss too easily the very legitimate concerns of spiritually-minded folks. I have no answer except to say that we don’t know the whole story yet, so I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss G-d or Nature from the textbooks.

:::Menolly again...huh? I hope someone here understands all of Paul's references. Then again, as stated earlier, it was written at 2:00 AM...:::
Image
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 25488
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 57 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Paul wrote:So does consciousness alter genetics, vice versa, or neither? I would say that science is waiting for some extraordinary proof, perhaps in the form of an individual or group that can alter DNA in a well-controlled experiment. I think we will have good evidence in the next ten years that genetic material is subject to very slight alterations by focused and disciplined consciousnesses over fairly long time periods,
Since you don't merely wonder if good evidence of this kind of thing will be coming, but you seem to expect it, in what form do you expect it to come? Are you aware of any particular method of focused and disciplined consciousness being used in the attempt that seems to be accomplishing something more than random results?
Paul wrote:but that there is almost no feedback method by which this ability can be developed-it is not very effective in general. Once the admission that the effect is real is made, however, it should become possible to develop a new range of instruments and technologies to augment the ability to make a useful therapeutic tool,
Reminds me of Heinlein's Time for the Stars. When identical twins were found to be able to instantly communicate telepathically over any number of lightyears, scientists knew that instant transfers were possible, and developed faster-than-light travel. If what you're suggesting is proven possible, to any degree - if even the Amazing Randy can't debunk it! - then I'm sure it will be developed.
Paul wrote:On a related note, does Goedel’s theorem actually prove that we can understand those truths that transcend any finite set of axioms, or merely that such truths must exist?
It sure doesn't prove that I can understand them! :lol:
Paul wrote:3. What I meant about going against the standard view of evolution is the old adage that “nature makes no jumps” or ‘nonsaltationism.’ In this view, derived from nineteenth century geological uniformitarianism, evolutionary processes must take place very slowly and uniformly in order to conform with ideas about natural law in general. In essence, by Ockham’s razor, there is no reason to expect that a given process should vary in rate unless specific evidence is found that suggests it does so. This evidence, it would appear, has now been found. Of course, Gould and Margulies had proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain the gaps in fossil records for rapidly changing species several decades ago, largely without strong evidence.

As far as the mechanism of selection pressure, it is certainly too rapid for random mutation, but even for sexual-reproduction crossover mutations two decades is quite rapid. If the article says that the small-beak gene was already in place, as Xar suggests, however, it is a variation in the expression of the gene, and not necessarily in its actual code. It was probably the small-beak allele of the beak gene that was favored over the large-beak allele. This is typical in Darwinian evolution, but it is unusual to weed out a single dominating variant from a population within two decades, although this seems to be occurring in some lakes in Africa.
Certainly, we're talking about a characteristic that was there at the beginning of the time period in question, no? I wasn't expecting my first possibility to be a serious consideration. And if there is a recessive gene present that manifests as a noticably different physical feature, then I imagine the speed at which this feature becomes more common than the dominant-gene's feature could be quite quick - if the environmental factors are putting enough pressure on things. This case seems just right for that. It's not like a mutation caused the larger beaks, and this new bird started eating things the other birds did not. Heck, a new competitor was introduced into the scene!

However, for it to happen this fast, I'd expect the medium ground finches to suffer a pretty big drop in population. Many of those with the larger beaks would die, since they couldn't compete well with the new, large ground finches, who had better beaks. So only a small number of medium ground finches, the ones with the small beaks that could eat something that they didn't have to compete for, would survive. Then they'd have smaller-beaked babies.

So, if a sufficient number of large ground finches showed up, the popoulation of the medium ground finches would change beak-size very quickly, but there wouldn't be nearly as many of them for a while.

Although this is just off-the-cuff thoughts by someone not at all educated in this stuff, so... :lol:
Paul wrote:we see related forms that do not change one into another,
Of course. The idea is that there used to be one species, and it grew into two. The chances of random mutations making two species more alike would seem kinda slim. Since I'm sure you know that, I don't really know what you're trying to say.
Menolly wrote:huh? I hope someone here understands all of Paul's references. Then again, as stated earlier, it was written at 2:00 AM...:::
I ignored his 2), since I understood none of his references. :LOLS:
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon

Image
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19845
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

On a related note, does Goedel’s theorem actually prove that we can understand those truths that transcend any finite set of axioms, or merely that such truths must exist?
This answer is perhaps far too simplistic: the theorem doesn't prove anything about our understanding. Our understanding of the theorem illustrates, well, something about our understanding. Because we can understand the theorem, we can do something that no computer--which only processes algorithms--can do. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that there are true propositions within math that no amount of algorithmic processing can ever prove even in principle. Thus, because we can understand the proof, we are doing something which no computer--no matter how advanced or powerful it may be--can ever do in principle.

Penrose extends this point to argue that computers can never become conscious. Whether or not you accept this depends on what you think consciousness is. Certain philosophers like Daniel C. Dennett seem to argue that we're not really conscious at all, that consciousness is a kind of complex "illusion." And some advocates of hard AI, or functionalism, will argue that consciousness itself is merely an effect of computations--a claim that isn't very convincing to me. They would argue that a simulation of consciousness is the same thing as consciousness itself; the old "Turing Test." The idea is roughly: if a computer can successfully convince you that it is conscious (through a series of penetrating questions), then it is in fact conscious. Self-awareness, in this instance, isn't as important as external results and the computer's participation with other "intelligent" beings. Advocates of soft AI would argue that while consciousness can certainly be simulated, a simulation is not the same as that which it simulates (much like a simulation of a hurricane is NEVER a hurricane, even if we assume virtually "infinite" precision and "infinite" number of calculated variables).

Penrose argues that consciousness cannot be produced through computation, nor even simulated, because (as I stated previously) consciousness is fundamentally noncomputational. He takes seriously the problems qualia and self-awareness raise for functionalism. And his notion of "understanding" relies heavily upon awareness. Thus, the understanding which is involved in something like Godel's theorem involves an awareness of number itself--the concept of "number"--which computers can never possess, even though they process numbers with extreme efficiency.

In the end, there is something special about the brain itself, the matter making up the brain. In THE QUANTUM SELF, Danah Zohar speculates that the brain is a Bose-Einstein condensate. Conscious humans are the natural bridge between the everyday world and the world of quantum physics.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 62038
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Contact:

Post by Avatar »

Excellent posts folks. Very interesting.

According to the article Fist, there was a big drop in the population.
The situation reached a tipping point when a severe drought hit the island in 2003 and 2004.

Both finches suffered, since there were far fewer seeds overall. The dominant large ground finch ate most of the available large seeds.

"With the near removal of the supply of large seeds, the large-beaked birds [among] the medium ground finches did not have enough food to survive," Peter Grant said.

"They died at a faster rate than the small-beaked members of the population."
I like the idea of consciousness having the power to change, for example, the DNA. The attraction of Wicca for example has always lain in the idea that the will can be exerted over mundane physical reality.

And of course, I agree with Malik that conciousness is more than merely the sum of its parts, or of its computations, if you prefer.

Some great lines by Paul there too, many of which feed my own viewpoint about the malleable nature of reality. :D

--A
Post Reply

Return to “The Loresraat”