Do you think nature values an organism over another? — Bradskii

I do sometimes ponder why evolution didn't simply come to an end with blue-green algae. Heaven knows they proven their ability to survive for near a billion years.

That story does not explain why the surviving rabbit was able to run faster. It explains why it survived which is a trivial observation. — Andrew4Handel

I was a good runner back in the day. My son is better. My daughter not as good. If foxes were chasing the three of us, my daughter and her slightly slower genes would be removed from the gene pool. My son's wouldn't. So his children would have a tendency to be faster than my daughter's would have been.

Rinse and repeat.

'A variation in the gene MCT1 is associated with difficulties in moving lactate throughout the body and an earlier onset of muscular fatigue (2).

Risk of tendon and ligament injury, a major concern for runners, is also under genetic influence. A pair of genes that help make collagen proteins, COL1A1 and COL5A, play an instrumental role in strengthening tendons and ligaments. Variations in these genes are associated with risk of tendon and ligament injuries, such as ACL injuries, Achilles tendon injuries, shoulder dislocations and tennis elbow'.

https://www.toolboxgenomics.com/blog/born-to-run-how-your-genetics-can-impact-running-performance/

I do sometimes ponder why evolution didn't simply come to an end with blue-green algae. Heaven knows they proven their ability to survive for near a billion years. — Wayfarer

That's dangerously close to the old 'why are there still monkeys?' question.

Now that is abject nonsense. Value is a human construct. — Bradskii

Did you forget my quote from Darwin himself earlier and if not how does it not invoke value and how do terms like "advantageous" and "fittest" not invoke value judgments?

"Withsavages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; (...) Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

On this picture Darwin was assuming that intervening to help the weak was damaging to evolutionary processes. And that you could judge which traits could be deemed advantageous. But there are several other quotes from prominents in the field along this vein including eugenics sentiment.

So how does someone make an accurate assessment of fitness? Either it simply the ability to survive by whatever means including assistance to the poor and sick or a value judgement on why something continues to exist. We could all "aid" natural selection by randomly killing each other and seeing who gets selected by deciding which interventions we deem most valuable to the theory at hand.

We have the notion of Spandrels where we have to decide whether a trait is there because it is beneficial or just coming along for the ride. Including things like I mentioned trying to give homosexuality an evolutionary explanation in terms of fitness and selecting a gay persons supposedly evolutionarily useful traits by making value judgements. Sickle cell trait is now described as advantageous because it protects against malaria whilst also it reduces life span and potential causing all sorts of horrible health problems.
In comparison claiming the heart pumps blood around the body does not appear to claim any value judgments just observations.

I was a good runner back in the day. My son is better. My daughter not as good. If foxes were chasing the three of us, my daughter and her slightly slower genes would be removed from the gene pool. — Bradskii

But the question is how did you come to have the trait of being a good runner? How can something be selected for if it does into already exist.

Rubbish computers won't survive Better computers but that basic facts that beneficial things survival doesn't explain their origins
which seems to solely rely on emergent properties (like proteins) and then random genetic mutations creating further impressive properties to be favoured .

To labor the point if I developed the ability to breathe under water and survived a massive flood that would explain why I survived not how I got the trait and on top of that as a homosexual I then have to find a nice young lady to impregnate with by great trait.

Did you forget my quote from Darwin himself earlier and if not how does it not invoke value and how do terms like "advantageous" and "fittest" not invoke value judgments? — Andrew4Handel

And I asked you if you wanted to start another thread on social Darwinism. Especially as it relates to eugenics. Or do you want to discuss his thread which is about the evolutionary process?

And the terms you just used are meaningless as regards value in an evolutionary sense. It's simply a function of the language we use. Nature doesn't care if you live or die. Surviving and becoming extinct are simply the two outcomes. There is no preference. There are no winners and losers. There are just those that are still in the game and those that are not. If all life became extinct because of the process and nature had some shoulders she'd shrug them. Saying that evolution implies value is like saying that gravity implies it. Hey, falling down is good!

Now you might have a preference. You might think that you have value. But that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. To repeat, the process doesn't care what happens to you. So there cannot be any value in the process. Only what you determine.

That's dangerously close to the old 'why are there still monkeys?' question. — Bradskii

Fair point. I guess the question I’m angling towards is that of whether evolution is directional in nature - whether it tends towards (for instance) creatures with higher degrees of intelligence. I understand that the mainstream view is ‘definitely not’. But then you can ask whether it is a question that is in scope for biology or science at all. What evidence could there be for either the affirmative or negative? It would seem to me to be more a matter of the starting assumptions.

But the question is how did you come to have the trait of being a good runner? How can something be selected for if it does into already exist. — Andrew4Handel

This is evolution 101. This is basic biology.

We are not clones. So my kids are not going to be exactly the same as me. They will be subtlety different. And my son might have a mutation in his genetic makeup that makes his VO2 max different to mine. Like he has a slightly different genome that makes him a slightly different height. All this is pretty obvious.

Now his VO2 max might be better than mine, so all other things being equal, he'll be a better runner. And his sister might have the same as me. So if we are running from a predator, all other things being equal, my son has a better chance of survival and passing on his VO2 max genes.

Have you checked out the best long distant runners on the planet? Almost all Ethiopians. All a result of genetics. Want a son in with a chance of winning the Boston Marathon? Marry an Ethiopian woman.

Fair point. I guess the question I’m angling towards is that of whether evolution is directional in nature - whether it tends towards (for instance) creatures with higher degrees of intelligence. I understand that the mainstream view is ‘definitely not’. But then you can ask whether it is a question that is in scope for biology or science at all. What evidence could there be for either the affirmative or negative? It would seem to me to be more a matter of the starting assumptions. — Wayfarer

No direction. Unless you want to claim a divine purpose. Nature doesn't think 'Hmm, if this mammal was slightly smarter, then it would have a better chance of survival.' It doesn't think 'Hmm, if it was faster...'

It's a genetic roll of the dice. If you happen to be faster and that's an evolutionary advantage, then you'll survive longer and pass on your 'fast' genes. That's why gazelles are fast runners. All the slow gazelles were eaten. And I think it's a given that some sort of intelligence, or even basic awareness of some sort, is an evolutionary advantage. So those with that genetic difference will survive to pass on that difference.

And in some senses it becomes an arms race. Gazelles get faster, so the lions who aren't as fast starve. But the ones who are themselves faster yet again survive. So the gazelles need to up the speed again to survive.

That story does not explain why the surviving rabbit was able to run faster. It explains why it survived which is a trivial observation. — Andrew4Handel

Survival is not a trivial observation, it is key to selection. It is what selection means in this context.

But is seems what needs to happen is for the long legs to evolve somehow by genetic mutation alone , already exist and then be selected which means the key process is the beneficial mutation and why that happened. — Andrew4Handel

Growing longer legs is not the only kind of mutation that can allow a rabbit to outrun a fox. A rabbit can acquire a mutation that makes its heart or muscles stronger or faster, or a mutation that makes it slightly smarter or behave differently, better senses, and whatever else i can't think of right now. The process of evolution is composed of two parts: variation and selection (natural or otherwise). The reason a mutation happens could be from a variety of different things: radiation, transcription errors, mutagenic compounds, etc., and can be either detrimental or advantageous. If the mutation confers advantage and is not fatal then the mutation spreads through the population.

The capacity for legs to evolve would require preexisting emergent properties available in biochemistry which would not be explained by evolution it self. — Andrew4Handel

If not evolution then what?

For example how would a polar bear survive in the North pole if it did not already have lots of body fat and White fur etc. It is not going to be competing against green and red and thin bears. — Andrew4Handel

All that is needed is a species with already existing small amounts of fat and hair. If this species is driven into colder environments or if the present environment begins to get colder over time the evolutionary or environmental pressure forces a selection process. As it gets colder some of the animals die because they either have too little fat, or fur, or both. Some survive because they have a little more fat or fur to keep them just a little warmer.

Out of the set of survivors who already have a little more fat or fur reproduce and increase the expression of those genes or traits. One animal with more fat but less fur reproduces with another that has normal fat but more fur and have offspring with both more fat and more fur; increasing their advantage even more. This process can go on until they are perfectly adapted to the new environment. There will be no thin bears in that new colder environment because the environment would have selected them out of local circulation.

No direction. Unless you want to claim a divine purpose. — Bradskii

They seem to be the two horns of a dilemma, don't they? I'm familiar with the dogma, but I still say it's a reasonable question, from the perspective of speculative philosophy.

They seem to be the two horns of a dilemma, don't they? I'm familiar with the dogma, but I still say it's a reasonable question, from the perspective of speculative philosophy. — Wayfarer

I'm an atheist, so there's no dilemma for me.

I still say it’s an open question. There are alternatives to either of the two horns.

Yes, if you have >1 tickets with different numbers for the same drawing, of course the odds increase to >1 / X. I misread(?) @Hanover's "the more I play" as iterative .. . the way folks repetitiously manhandle slot machine handles or craps dice to "warm them up".

No direction. Unless you want to claim a divine purpose. — Bradskii

The way i see it is that evolution does have a direction in the same way entropy and time have a direction. It's an inevitable unfolding of a process that always ends up producing more complex forms along the way. Evolution at the core is blind, but the forms that it creates are ever increasing in complexity and intelligence. The more complex or intelligent these forms become the more they can be selective and guide their own evolution.. by intelligent design.

Consider now how human intelligence is beginning to manipulate genetic information. This ability affords us the possibility to move into a new kind of evolution that is more efficient, and purposeful, and also signifies to me the coming of age of our species. Any species that takes control of its own evolution becomes in my view an "adult" or mature species in the universe. One can call it a god at that point if one were so inclined, an entity in charge of its destiny one can say.

I don't see what the relevance of the "selection" process is for explaining an organisms traits. — Andrew4Handel

It's a choice.

Evolution through natural selection is our heritage, not our moral compass.
Human intellect, intent, purpose and rationale, has the ability to legislate against any law/rule of the jungle. Richard Dawkins has time and time again, stated during interviews/lectures/debates etc that any emulation of Darwinian rules within human society, is vile.

Dawkins on human morality (7mins):


Dawkins comparing secular morality with religious based morality (4 mins):


We don't need god posits or scripture to drive our morality. In fact most scripture is morally reprehensible. Humanism, democratic socialism and secular morality seem to be much better ways to develop a benevolent human society than using any role models from evolution or theism.

Is your standard of truth divorced from morality or ethics?

If something is a fact it is a fact. — Andrew4Handel

There, you've answered your own question.

I do believe science has an ethical dimension. We don't randomly shoot babies to see what the results will be or as Frankie Boyle put it see how many pastilles it takes to choke a Kestrel. — Andrew4Handel

Maybe we don't, but Dr. Mengele and other scientists did. Science should have an ethical dimension, but it doesn't come with one right out of the box. It's what's known as an after-market add-on.

But what has it got to do with our future decisions? As I say you can't get an ought from an is.... but you may induce depression in someone by belittling their status and belief values to prove our evolutionary status. I had this experience when I spent years battling anxiety and depression and arguing on atheist forums looking for a more hopeful prognosis on existence. — Andrew4Handel

Are you saying that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is wrong because it makes us feel bad? That doesn't work for me.

I'm not sure what that means. What would be a specific aspect of biology that is not derivable from chemistry? — punos

If you used all of your knowledge of chemistry, you could not predict the basic scientific principles of biology, e.g. the structure and behavior of a single-celled organism. This is true even though every process that takes place in the cell would proceed consistent with the principles of chemistry.

I think this is absolutely true. There is bottom-up causation, and there is top-down causation which makes things more complex than just bottom-up, but that doesn't preclude derivability. — punos

If you're saying that biological processes are predictable from chemical processes, I think the consensus is that you're wrong.

No, selection happens at all levels. All that is needed for selection to occur are things that can interact or affect and be affected by other things in an environment or space. The selection process emerges out of complex interactions, and the probability distribution of all the possible interactions determines what gets selected. That is what selection is in general at any level, biological or otherwise. — punos

Perhaps. I'll think about it.

Ahem. — Wayfarer

Don't you "ahem" me.

Survival of the fittest was introduced by Herbert Spencer in an essay on the principle of natural selection - Darwin later approved and adopted it (I think it was even in later editions of his book). — Wayfarer

Ahem... I didn't say Darwin or Wallace came up with the term, only that they used it.

If I add heat to the water, it is heated and the water molecule increase in kinetic energy. Since it is confined by air pressure, it's pressure increases (PV=NRT) and it's entropy decreases.
— T Clark

I googled it, what I find is the opposite: — Wayfarer

You're right. It's been 35 years since I took thermodynamics. I shouldn't be giving lectures. I'm setting about reedumacating myself.

I do sometimes ponder why evolution didn't simply come to an end with blue-green algae. Heaven knows they proven their ability to survive for near a billion years. — Wayfarer

That's almost what happened. The first single-celled organism is thought to have developed about 3.5 billion years ago fairly soon (500 million years) after the Earth cooled enough to support organic compounds. The first multi-cellular life is thought to date from about 600 million years ago.

But the question is how did you come to have the trait of being a good runner? How can something be selected for if it does into already exist. — Andrew4Handel

Darwin was explicit and all other evolutionary biologists understand that Darwin's theory doesn't explain the origins of life.

If you used all of your knowledge of chemistry, you could not predict the basic scientific principles of biology, e.g. the structure and behavior of a single-celled organism. This is true even though every process that takes place in the cell would proceed consistent with the principles of chemistry. — T Clark

This is just a temporary state of affairs due to our limited but growing knowledge of these processes. On the specific issue you mention about the structure and behavior of cells; Michael Levin is at the cutting edge of that research, and we will soon know how that all happens.

If you're saying that biological processes are predictable from chemical processes, I think the consensus is that you're wrong. — T Clark

Consensus is not the criteria in science, that's called democracy and it's a whole different thing. Consensus is fickle and changes with the times as ignorance and knowledge ebbs and flows.

I guess the question I’m angling towards is that of whether evolution is directional in nature — Wayfarer

No direction. Unless you want to claim a divine purpose. — Bradskii

There certainly is one directional aspect of evolution - it progresses towards complexity and diversity. There's no magic to it. The earliest life was as simple as it could possibly be. There was nowhere to go but up.

This is just a temporary state of affairs due to our limited but growing knowledge of these processes. — punos

I'm skeptical, but I don't have the background to make the argument. I'll watch the video.

I'm skeptical, but I don't have the background to make the argument. I'll watch the video. — T Clark

:up:

This is just a temporary state of affairs due to our limited but growing knowledge of these processes. On the specific issue you mention about the structure and behavior of cells; Michael Levin is at the cutting edge of that research, and we will soon know how that all happens. — punos

I watched the video. It was interesting and really impressive. I don't see what it has to do with the subject we were discussing - how to predict biological phenomena from chemical principles.

Consensus is not the criteria in science, that's called democracy and it's a whole different thing. Consensus is fickle and changes with the times as ignorance and knowledge ebbs and flows. — punos

Say what you want about truth, scientific consensus is the only criteria we have to determine the best way to use scientific knowledge to decide how to act. E.g. the fact that there is a consensus about the existence and significance of climate change gives us good reasons to change our behavior.

The point about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics is that evolution apparently defies the second law by greatly increasing the degree of order - but, we are told, only because somewhere else in the Universe, entropy is increasing in inverse proportion. This decrease in entropy became the term 'negentropy', a contraction of 'negative entropy' coined by Erwin Schrodinger in his book What is Life? (reputedly one of the inspirations behind the later discovery of DNA.)

I'm dubious about the so-called supremacy of the second law of thermodynamics. As an overall trend in Western thought, 'natural laws' of this kind have been assigned the role previously accorded to 'divine law' or (as Alfred North Whitehead says) 'the inexorable decrees of fate'. But now I note in many of the popular science media in my newsfeed, the whole concept of 'scientific law' is itself being called into question.

As we're into video show-and-tell, here's a presentation by Robert Lanza on 'biocentrism'. I'm not sure how he is regarded in the mainstream - I suspect not highly - but I find his attitude philosophically superior to your common or garden varieties of materialism.

As we're into video show-and-tell, here's a presentation by Robert Lanza on 'biocentrism'. I'm not sure how he is regarded in the mainstream - I suspect not highly - but I find his attitude philosophically superior to your common or garden varieties of materialism. — Wayfarer

I started to watch, but stopped about 4 minutes in when he started hinting at a connection between quantum mechanics and consciousness. That is a red light, perhaps you would say a prejudice, of mine.

I don't see what it has to do with the subject we were discussing - how to predict biological phenomena from chemical principles. — T Clark

The main idea is that it's not just chemistry but there is another aspect apart from pure genetics and chemistry that is responsible for morphology. Genetics just produces the parts and the bio-electric activity determines how the parts organize themselves. At any level there are two aspects: stuff (atoms, cells, people), and then the forces that organizes the stuff (fundamental forces, bio-electricity, and culture respectively). If that doesn't make sense to you then just disregard it (no big deal), but i find that it gives me insight.