Quetzal

E_Muse:

Again, you’ve brought up some excellent points. Before I get in to the meat of your response to ME specifically, I want to mention one thing.

[DIGRESSION ALERT] WRT evolutionary computer simulations. I tend to agree with you. Note, however, that I approach these simulations from the viewpoint of an ecologist [which I’m not, but that’s the way I tend to look at things (and btw that’s E. scientificus not E. politicus – different species )]. Dawkins’s computer simulations were more 2-dimensional artificial selection simulations than natural selection, since they were designed to achieve some kind of optimum condition. Even the WebSpinner program he discusses in “Climbing Mount Improbable” leaves a lot to be desired. My opinion is that, given current state of the art, these simulations overall have limited utility except to illustrate certain concepts. I’ll wait until they can simulate an entire ecology before I’ll get very excited about them. Hey, what’s wrong with wanting to have AND eat your cake? [END DIGRESSION]

I understand your reasoning in the name/monkey discussion. You’re absolutely correct, as far as it goes. However, you are basing the argument on what I perceive as an erroneous premise: that there is some fundamental requirement that evolution must proceed strictly linearly. That isn’t actually the case. To be able to show why, I’m going to have to take up substantially more bandwidth than I probably should and go over some real basics – but I want to make sure you have the same understanding of the conceptual framework as I do (and my discussion here may answer some of your genetics questions as well). I’m not going to focus specifically on the eye (sorry for the pun), because what follows can apply to any trait. My apologies if you already know this stuff…

First off, we need to look at the basic assumptions behind evolution:

1. If all the offspring that organisms can produce were to survive and reproduce, they would soon overrun the earth.

2. As a consequence, there is competition to survive and reproduce, in which only a few individuals succeed in leaving progeny.

3. Organisms show variation in characters that influence their success in this struggle for existence. Individuals within a population vary from one another in many traits.

4. Offspring tend to resemble parents, including in characters that influence success in the struggle to survive and reproduce.

5. Parents possessing certain traits that enable them to survive and reproduce will contribute disproportionately to the offspring that make up the next generation.

6. To the extent that offspring resemble their parents, the population in the next generation will consist of a higher proportion of individuals that possess whatever adaptation enabled their parents to survive and reproduce.

Next, you need to understand (and remember) that natural selection is simply the differential reproduction of genotypes. There are two basic assumptions for natural selection to work:

1. There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness, visual acuity.

2. There must be differential survival and reproduction associated with the possession of that trait.



Now heritable variation occurs by mutational changes in an organism’s DNA (any change in the hereditary message – base pair substitution or insertion/deletion of new bases) leading to the creation of new genetic material AND/OR creation of new genetic combinations through transposition (changing the position of a gene changes what it does), recombination (through cross-over during meosis), or genetic reshuffling (through sexual reproduction). Without getting too deep into it, selection can only act on the phenotype. A gene can be present, but not expressed (e.g. a recessive allele). Only homozygous recessives will show the trait and be selected for or against. In addition, selection acts on the whole organism (a conspicuously-colored moth, for ex, can have all sorts of wonderful genes, but if a bird nails that moth, its entire genotype is gone). And finally, selection doesn’t have to cause changes. It also can maintain the status quo.

Where’s all this leading? Basically, the above means that there is no requirement that evolution proceed in a linear fashion. It is quite common to have an organism’s DNA contain multiple non-significant (unexpressed) or recessive alleles. Because these alleles serve no immediately useful function for an organism’s individual survival/reproductive success, natural selection simply ignores them. Meaning that if environmental conditions change there are generally individuals in a given population whose traits all of a sudden become important to their survival. This is one of the primary ways bacteria “develop” resistance to antibiotics: the resistance was already present in the population. All the antibiotics have done is eliminate all the members WHO DID NOT ALREADY HAVE THE TRAIT, increasing the overall frequency of alleles which are resistant within the population.

Another marvelous outgrowth of natural selection is that often different combinations of genes or even macrostructures that are useful for one thing are found to be ultimately useful for something else, as well. These traits are then co-opted by natural selection to other uses.
The combination of all these elements leads to the inescapable conclusion that our hypothetical monkey isn’t required to type h-e-l-l-o in a specific order. It may only need to type an “h”, because the “e” from “monkey”, an “l” from “evolution”, and the “lo” from “genetic lottery”, will by their nature already pre-existing in the organism, automatically form the word “hello”. And since even “he” provides a better adaptation than “h” alone, each one of these additions – over time – will lead inescapably to hello. It makes even more sense if you consider that “he” may be completely well-adjusted for its current environment. I mean, we have nearly 4 billion years of evolutionary time and variation to play with. It only requires a single step at a time AND each step needn’t (in fact shouldn’t) be considered in light of any subsequent step – only in comparison to its predecessor. As Dawkins pointed out: even a 1% increase in vision is an advantage.

New genes (hence new traits) do not arise because they are needed – they arise by chance.

E_muse

Peter, thank you for very kindly posting the comments made by Richard Dawkins. I shall go through it, first however...

Morpho, apologies if I cannot respond to your excellent post immediately.

My original post was, in part, to question Dawkin's assertion that natural selection is 'quintessentially non-random'.

This has much to do with the way in which we define the term 'random'. It might seem like I'm reducing the arguement to a matter of semantics. However, in The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins himself makes reference to the way in which we use words:

But does this mean that we can use words in any way we see fit? How can we know what a person means, especially when reading an arguement on such a complex subject as the origins of life! A conversation on another thread brought this home to me. We will always apply our own definition on statements being made and this might actually be taking us further from the intent of meaning of the writer. Clearly, the writer would need to clarify the sense in which they are using words.

Over the issue of describing man made mechanical objects as 'biological', which is the context of the above statement, Dawkins does clarify. However, it is his use of the word 'random' which I am drawing into question.

A dictionary definiton of 'random' might be helpful at this stage:

haphazard is defined as mere chance and casually. Casual can simply mean appearing by chance and chance simply means 'without intention'. Without intention means without aim or purpose so that chance and randomness are closely linked concepts.

This could lead to the following conclusion. That random events are more likely to occur in less ordered systems.

Now, for the moment I do not wish to look at biological entities in terms of biology but as physical entities governed by the laws of physics.

This is important and Richard Dawkins points it out:

The examples which I have given in the excellent and thought provoking discussion with Morpho are not necessarity examples exploring evolution on the genetic but rather the physical level. It is also important to point out that some criticisms of the theory of biological evolution have come from scientists of other disciplines as the example below clarifies.

If we look at discoveries across the sciences, particularly cosmology and biology, we find that evolution is a common factor. The cosmos itself is argued to have evolved.

Within cosmology, the universe itself began life as a disorderly mass of energy at the point of the Big Bang. As the universe expanded and cooled, matter in the universe became more orderly, less chaotic. Galaxies, suns, planets and moons were formed. We know for certain that on one planet at least, matter became even more complex. Non-living matter reorganized again giving rise to living entities. In the context of living organisms, matter continued to be arranged in more and more complex ways. From our vantage point we can say, as Richard Dawkins does in The Blind Watchmaker, that living things make planets look simple! In the form of man, matter has been organized in such a way that it is able to laugh, cry and even question the meaning of its own existence! I find that quite something!

However, we discover a causal relationship in the universe. All complex arrangements of matter owe their existence to previous forms of matter which were not as organized and more random. It was this which I was seeking to communicate in the context of the discussion about the eye.

On with Richard's comments:

And so with the article - Title ommitted:

Random mutation Richard. I think you mention it a few times yourself.

So you do remember! So evolution does have something to do with randomness after all?

O.K, a little more seriously.

Why should I see the non-random element of evolutionary theory as most important than the random element? Richard Dawkins obviously sees it as more important but obviously feels that I should too! Without random mutation life would remain static.

If Random mutation and natural selection are both necessary in order for biological evolution towards increased complexification to work then why should I see one element as more important than the other.

So mutation is random and not directed towards improvement. That is how I understand this statement.

This cannot be entirely true. It could even be construed as misleading.

Some mutations must be towards improvement otherwise improvements couldn't occur could they?

Of course, what type of mutation could be considered an improvement depends upon other factors.

Wouldn't it be best to say:

Because mutation in living organisms is random, not all mutations will be to the organism's benefit within its environment. Some may even be detrimental.

I would suggest the following. If mutation is random then the results could be -

1. Beneficial
2. Detrimental
3. Neutral

Let me see if I've got this straight. Improvement comes about through natural selection. Improvement comes about as a result of beneficial mutations. So beneficial random mutation and natural selection are just different labels for the same thing.

Actually, let's look at this term, natural selection a little more closely.

Natural selection simply means that 'things in nature' have an effect on which mutations will be allowed to survive long enough to reproduce. However 'things in nature' includes the random mutations themselves. To refer to natural selection and random mutation as separate things could lead to the conclusion that random mutations are somehow seperate from nature. This seems misleading.

Let's go back to an earlier comment.

Presumably genes are the result of small step random mutation. As with any random process, as I tried to demonstrate in my example of cutting letters from a sheet typed by a monkey, the successes are in the minority.

However, I cannot see the need for this appeal to 'natural selection'.

Organisms randomly mutate. Most of these mutations will be detrimental, others will be neutral or benefical and allow a species to continue. However, biological entities are then 'selected' or 'deselected' by the nature of the mutations themselves. There doesn't appear to be a need to appeal to anything else. Organisms stand or fall depending upon the mutations which occur in them. What is beneficial depends upon environmental factors.

In an age of democracy and commercialism, 'selection' can give an overwhelming impression of 'informed choice'. This is misleading as blind natural forces are not 'informed' consciously.

To conclude - biological entities mutate. Most of these mutations will be detrimental. However, a very few will promoste survival and lead to greater complexity in the host species. What is beneficial to the host will depend upon its environment.

Evolution is the result of beneficial random mutations to be understood within the context of the host's environment. Evolution is randomness under constraint.

That last statement is obvious Richard, which is why you seem so insistent that 'natural selection', (which is quintessentially non-random) is more important than random mutation, instead of simply saying that living organisms randomly mutate and some of these mutations survive and lead to greater complexity - which seems much more straightforward and easier to understand!

As for the statement, "No rational person could believe that random forces could produce a world of living things."

Firstly, this is a truth statement about rationalists rather than the forces of nature. All I know from this is that there are certain things which rationalists cannot believe.

It is exactly the type of Arguement from Personal Incredulity which Richard addresses in The Blind Watchmaker. Here, rather than personal, it is an Arguement from Rationalistic Incredulity. Presumably this is acceptable!

Secondly, it is the claim of rational people that random forces did produce a world of living things. It is the claim which Richard Dawkins is making!!

According to Dawkins, life appeared by chance and has become more complex as a direct result of random mutation. Any living organism is the product of the accumulation of beneficial random genetic mutations. All living things are the product of a random process.

Lastly, if every living thing is the sum of a vast number of accumulated small step random mutations which have been able to survive, then how can can Dawkins state that no rational person could believe that random forces could produce a world of living things? That's excatly what he is stating and which is why I'm accusing him of palying with words.

Also, from an atheistic viewpoint, everything is the product of chance - it is a product of the Big Bang and none of it is planned. Even if there are limiting factors on random forces, these factors are themselves, there by chance. Not only is it life which has appeared by chance but also the environments in which we find it.

Life is here by chance whether Richard Dawkins can believe it or not!

Stating Hoyle's field of expertise says nothing about the contents of his arguement. His arguement may still be completely valid. One has to question Dawkin's need to insert this phrase (italics) as it is completely pointless.

Why couldn't he have said:

Fred Hoyle, the eminent British astronomer, has likened the theory of evolution to the following metaphor....

<snip>

Whilst Mr Hoyle is not a biologist, there is much which we can learn through a thorough examination of his objections...

What Dawkins has actually said amounts to nothing more than an attempt to put someone down in an apparent attempt to belittle their arguement.

Hoyle's example is flawed.

Firstly, all the parts for the airplane are there to begin with. This isn't the case with evolution. Secondly, the tornado could put the airplane together incorrectly. Non viable mutations in nature will not continue.

But as for the last statement, '...the erroneous belief that natural selection is nothing but a theory of chance.', I have a few things to say.

Imagine that I want to roll a dice and get 5. In order to improve my chances I roll six dice. I roll them and get the following result - 1, 1, 3, 5, 4, 2. I select the 5 and reject the others - I have the result I was looking for.

Simply because the 5 has been chosen, is it any less the product of chance than the results which haven't been selected. Of course not! Did occur any less randomly? No. I know this because I could have simply turned one dice over to the side I wanted and achieved the same result non randomly.

All living things 'have' occured by chance. Life occured by chance in the first instance and has become more complex by chance ever since.

Well, we'll see.

If there is luck in the theory of evolution and Darwin manages to smear it out then he must be a very clever man indeed!

Here we have it again, in unabiguous language - each little difference occurs by chance.

But if all life is the accumulation of many, many chance occurences which just happen to prove beneficial, then how can Richard argue that chance is only a small part of the Darwinian recipe?! Many, many chance mutations have produced many, many forms of life.

...... and an awful lot of luck Richard!! You seem to choose not to see that.

[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]

[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Peter Soderqvist

TO E MUSE
Random mutation is not natural selection!
Mutation is a random gene process, because we cannot predict when it happens, and for the same reason, no one knows, how the next Speciation will look like, this is a molecular phenomenon!

But here on macro level, some things are not at random here, since natural selection can be predicted, through the survival of the fittest vehicle. For instance, a fox is only running for his dinner, but the rabbit is running for his life, hence the selection pressure is harder on the rabbit's leg, than the fox's legs, and natural selection will favor fast legs, since slow legs tend to go extinct! No one knows when foxes or rabbit's offspring will inherit faster legs; because its random base (mutation) cannot be predicted, but we know through old experience, that sooner or later, this "microevolution" of faster legs will probable evolve, but we cannot say when?

What I am trying to say here is that, macro vehicle selection, is not a random molecular mutation phenomenon!

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Soderqvist ]</p>

Peter Soderqvist

TO JALIET

Soderqvist1: The creationists have not defined what kind of molecular process in macroevolution, which violates the second law of thermodynamics, because there is no such violations! However, thermodynamics govern every Physico-chemical process known. I mean entropy is defined as the amount of energy unavailable to do work, and the calorie is defined as the amount of energy, available to do work. And a biological system is defined 1944 by Erwin Shrödinger, as an open system which autonomously exchanges materials, and energy with its environment. For instance the photosynthesis!

Erwin Shrödinger
<a href="http://dieoff.org/page150.htm" target="_blank">http://dieoff.org/page150.htm</a>

Shadow Wraith

I just wanted to put my own input on the second law of TD into this discussion. Ilya Prigogine has shown that order can and does come from chaos in complex systems. Ludwig Boltzmann grossly overextrapolated the second law by saying that all things must go from low entropy to high entropy. Boltzmann's interpretation was good for systems like steam engines, simple gaseous systems, and glasses of hot or cold water sitting on a shelf in a room temperature environment, but not in complex systems like biospheres and even the whole universe.

Let us take the example given of the house: "For example, a dirty house left on its own will not become clean. Dust can collect on surfaces, mold can settle in, and so on. The best you can hope for is for things to stay the same."

Point taken. But lets change our closed system by adding an instability--a person (of course a human will leave their habitat for resources, but this is just for the sake of discussion). The person can remove the dust, mildew, and other filth and can otherwise clean up the dirty house. The instability of the human has brought order out of chaos. It is still a closed system, but it is complex and therefore unstable. There is no need to assume that processes like evolution, weather, the formation of heavy elements and compounds, and other so-called "antientropic" things violate the second law.

E_muse

Indeed, but there must be mutation on the macro level also that would lead from no eye to eye.

In my previous post I was examining the idea that random mutation is somehow apart from the selection process.

&lt;ponders&gt; This could be stretching the point as the fox's life depends upon his eating! A fox running for his dinner is also running for his life too - he is also looking to survive.

Survival depends upon who can run the fastest. The survival of foxes would depend upon there being rabbits who can run more slowly than them.

What we do have here is one biological entity which is the product of culumative chance mutations chased by another biological entity which is also the product of culumative chance mutations. Therefore the random process does work upon itself - which is what I was starting to explore - so this is a helpful example. This is also why I was questioning whether 'natural selection' could be described as 'quintessentially non-random'.

But presumably macro vehicle ability is the product of random molecular mutation phenomenon.

This is what I was driving at when I was starting to question whether random outcomes (even if they are selected) determine what is selected elsewhere.

Peter Soderqvist

TO SHADOW WRAITH

Soderqvist1: Must go is a misunderstanding, tend to go whenever possible is more correct! For instance, take a puzzled picture, and put it in a box, and start to shake the box. The puzzle tend to disorganize into scattered pieces, but after a while, some pieces can organize themselves by joining one, or two three or so, but the probability that the scattered pieces will organize into a whole picture, by random shakings is infinitesimal. As you can see here it is not an absolute. Gravitation is an absolute, because if you release your hands from the box, the box will under normal condition always end up on the floor, always! And this is also a time arrow; if you hold an egg in your hand, and let it drop to the floor, the chemical bond will be broken, and has released a tiny quantity of heat, and thus has increased entropy in the environment. The reverse is impossible, since no one has ever seen a broken egg on the floor, jumping up into someone's hands, and organize itself into a whole egg there!

Soderqvist1: If you add a person to the house, the house is not a closed system anymore, since a person is made up of calories, and calories are defined as ordered energy. A house cleaner, combusting his calories from food, when he clean the house, and the house is thus an open system every moment his hands are in touch with the house. The calories, goes from concentrated (ordered), to dispersed (disordered energy). You will always lose more energy, than you can win, hence a cleaned house + combusted energy = increase of entropy!

Soderqvist1: The biosphere is an open local system to the main solar system. Our sun feed the biosphere with sun power, and plants are our basic energy binders of sun power, air, soil, water, and is combusted as food, by both animals, and humans. All natural energies on the earth like oil, gasoline, etc are old stored solar energy. The sun is on decay, by burning its own fuels, and thus increase the entropy in the solar system, and because of that, make it possible for us to live here. Hence combusted solar energy + active biosphere = increase of entropy!

Soderqvist1: Do you know any circumstances there the laws of thermodynamics are violated?

By the way, I know that a complex system rise emergent properties, which cannot be found somewhere in the elements, for instance, a complex system of hydrogen molecules, and oxygen molecules, will give us a emergent property of water. Since water is neither hydrogen and nor oxygen, only molecular interaction between these component parts, will give us water! It is a new phenomenon!

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Soderqvist ]</p>

Peter Soderqvist

TO E MUSE
Can you define macro mutation?
All mutation I know about is gene mutation, and genes exert phenotypic effects on the body tissue. Slow legs are one phenotypic effect, inherited faster legs, are an another phenotypic effect, and gradual evolution from skin, to eyes is also phenotypic effects. The natural selection doesn't select directly between the fittest genes, it only indirect do so, since natural selection, selects directly between different phenotypic effects. As far as I know, Fred Hoyle 's mathematics regarding evolution was flawed, not because of his mathematics, but because he computed only with pure chance, with biological survival of the fittest not included. It is analogous to my example with the puzzle in the box, as mentioned above, organismal evolution need more than only random shakings!

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Soderqvist ]</p>

E_muse

I've already said that my knowledge of genetics is poor and that I am willing to learn more. I'm not so much assertion truth statements as exploring possibilities.

All I'm suggesting thus far is that genetic mutation causes mutation on the macro level. Gene mutation would also cause changes to phenotypes.

In other words, within evolutionary theory, no eyes would have evolved into eyes over a long process of gradual change with intermediates of varying complexity along the way. This means that mutation must have had an impact at an observable level with eyes changing and becoming slowly more complex over time. Evolution and increasing complexification within the phenotype. A gradual change in the phenotype itself.

Life itself and all the traits it exhibits (phenotypes) are the product of long term culumative random mutations - according to Dawkins.

Obviously outside influences can deselect or kill a number of genetic possibilities within a species and I have no problem understanding this. However, the original conversation was with regard to phenotype mutation. How we could get from 'no eye' to 'eye' over a period of millions of years.

Peter Soderqvist

TO E MUSE
I have revised my last message to you. Richard Dawkins has elaborated the issue regarding the evolution from skin to eyes; have you read my link?

<a href="http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/alabama/alabama.htm" target="_blank">http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/alabama/alabama.htm</a>