paradigm shift is on the way for Evolution

You will have to wait for the papers to come out, as usually journalists get a lot of things wrong. I don't see any new information here though personally.

Yes humans are a self-organising complex system. Yes the total number of possible transciptome states is mind boggling. Where have you been? Reductionist approaches rarely yield many practical insight into complex systems. Biology is only now taking the baby steps to catch up to where physics is.

But, complex self organising systems can be evolved, there is a military project I know of that uses EXACTLY this process for battle strategy simulation. As I said in a post earlier in the week, there are toolkits for SO systems available, see repast.sf.net. Granted there are no genetic algorithm evolving agent systems that I know of (and I don't use repast often so it may be there now), but we know this works.

Remember, most high school biology teachers have not even finished a biology degree, let alone molbio. They certainly aren't often postgraduate. I remember my first year of postgraduate study in molbio - it was heartbreaking, learning that EVERYTHING we had learned in the first 3 years of study was gross simplification, macro-concepts and far from the actual complexity that is biology.

Remember biologists over the last 10 years have been biting their tongue a bit, with epigenetics, weird gene transfer, possible lamarkian mechanisms, but this doesn't mean evolution is wrong - as it does explain a lot of science, but that the model is just being refined. If we find a better model tomorrow that explains observations even better, I will sure jump ship. Its the nature of science!

But... regardless of the mechanism, it's still not proof of ID! Now, if you could prove that there was an organism that inherited genes from mutliple points on the phylogenetic tree, that would be something...

reply to post by sufusci


interesting post.
this is not the place for it, but you present an equally interesting challenge. i'd like to prove to you, elsewhere on the site, perhaps another thread, that there's evidence for ID.

reply to post by undo

Bring it. I will give it a fair shot, just like I did the pear project.

The best way to get a handle on evolutionary processes is to look at the simplest organisms.

Single celled organisms abound. Due to small changes and a bit of random chance, two or three organisms are able to attach.

Over time they form a rudimentary tube structure. At this point they have become a 'new species'. They may still have the basic life processes of the single celled organism, but things are now primed for additional functions to be acquired.

Once you get to multicelled organisms, there are so many factors that things become obscure. It's possible to look back and see the basic structure of raptor showing some precursors of bird development. We can take a snapshot and see a bird that looks like a raptor, but with feather-like cells, but we can't easily see how this happened biochemically. But we know from the first example that changes can happen.

The tendency is to presume that complex changes required additional complex forces, and thus develop theories of genetic drift, mutation, natural selection and so forth, but these are macro-explanations of more fundamental processes which we can not observe in advanced organisms. They are doomed to be vague and probably incorrect.

The basic forces and biochemistry continues to be 'simple' on some level, in the sense that carbon still combines with nitrogen and oxygen - iow, new chemistry is not being created to cause an amphibian to turn into a reptile.

What might help a little is if we had every example of the amphibian's development, from intermediate forms to the final form. We'd have to look at a million examples. But it still wouldn't reveal the biochemistry, nor give us the ability to duplicate it, unless we can perform the original process, which includes random bombardment of the genome with cosmic rays over a million years. It's clearly impossible.

One can look at bacterial mutation since their life span is short. But they're not turning into a new 'species', they just have different immunities, for example.

So, imo, evolution as a process defies conventional explanation. The best model might involve doing a computer simulation, since those can be artificially 'aged' and the processes observed. But the problem is inputting the data and the forces. You risk simulating something that doesn't actually happen, which puts you back at square one - you have a rough idea but it's probably not accurate.

2 cents.

reply to post by Badge01


Speaking of snapshots of the past, have you read this thread by Astyanax?
Why are scientists resurrecting long-extinct deadly viruses?

The linked article is quite interesting.

reply to post by Beachcoma


Usually they have to apply for access to biohazard containment facilities and I would hope that they would use some additional controls into the genome (such as vulnerability to common disinfectants).

But I'm not sanguine about the ability of scientists to insure 100% containment. Accidents happen all the time.
Interesting explanation of one function of endogenous virus code (from Wiki):

During pregnancy in viviparous mammals (all mammals except Monotremes), ERVs are activated and produced in high quantities during the implantation of the embryo. They are currently known to act as immunodepressors, protecting the embryo from its mother's immune system. Also viral fusion proteins apparently cause the formation of the placental syncytium in order to limit the exchange of migratory cells between the developing embryo and the body of the mother (something an epithelium will not do sufficiently, as certain blood cells are specialized to be able to insert themselves between adjacent epithelial cells). The ERV is a virus similar to HIV (which causes AIDS in humans). The immunodepressive action was the initial normal behavior of the virus, similar to HIV, the fusion proteins were a way to spread the infection to other cells by simply merging them with the infected one (HIV does this too). It is believed that the ancestors of modern vivipary mammals evolved after an infection by this virus, enabling the fetus to survive the immune system of the mother. [1]

That's quite a leap to find gene sequences that may match part of retroviral base-pair encoding and the presume they were incorporated as some sort of survival strategy. Interesting how they perform an essential developmental step in viviparous mammals.

Ingenious experiment:

After resurrecting the virus, the team placed it in human cells and found that their creation did indeed insert itself into the DNA of those cells. They also mixed the virus with cells taken from hamsters and cats. It quickly infected them all, offering the first evidence that the broken parts could once again be made infectious.

It's evidence but not proof. DNA fragments like to combine. It's stoichemistry. Interesting, though.

“If Charles Darwin reappeared today, he might be surprised to learn that humans are descended from viruses as well as from apes,” Weiss wrote.

Brilliant. One of the small actors about which we might have no clue is revealed, perhaps.

Let's hope the terrorists aren't reading this stuff.

reply to post by melatonin



Mel's right.

melatonin:

Thus, this isn't some form of creationist meeting, but a small number of scientists and philosophers talking about different influences on evolution. Thus, evo-devo, epigenetics, along with sexual, group, and natural selection.

Yeah, they'll be no love for creationists in this crowd. Nor, will anything in the proposed new (less gene-centric more phenotype centered, "endogenous variables", etc.) evolutionary paradigm/synthesis be supportive of creationism (i.e., creation of 'kinds' ex nihilo). It's still (very much) pro common ancestry/descent with modification. I.e., evolution. You could maybe describe the new synthesis as more ID friendly (in the telic "of or pertaining to a goal or purpose" sense) but that's a stretch too.

I've heard this proposed new synthesis described as a Kuhnian paradigm shift. *shrug* Starts going over my head rather quicky. Evolutionary biologist, professor Allen MacNeill is both anti-creationism and anti-ID but supportive of the new synthesis and he has some good stuff relevant to what will (most likely) be discussed at the conference on his blog. Plus MacNeill's probably the most civil, knowledgeable and objective ID critic I've run across. His blog is a good resource imho.

The Gene Is Dead: Long Live the Gene!

What is the "engine" of evolution

For an ID evolutionary concept that may be more meaningful or useful under this new paradigm I'd recommend looking into Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis.

Regards.

Before creationists get too excited: Yes, this crowd seems to be getting the cold shoulder from their peers. Something new certainly seems like it's on the way and a major change might happen. But that does not necessarily mean they are going to replace natural selection or mutations with God.

Because we're not told much, this could mean anything. Everyone knows the theory of evolution and our origins as explained by secular science has massive gaping holes and a lot of unsolved questions. It looks like this team is actually trying to make some of those holes a little bit smaller. However, still with a secular explanation.

So don't get too excited just yet, creationists and IDers. We don't know what they're up to exactly. This could actually add more fuel to the fire if evolution undergoes a 'paradigm shift' and is able to answer more questions than it can now.

Not sure why so many evolutionists are trying to label this group of 16 scientists as 'fringe scholars' and odd balls, though. They could actually be 'beneficial' to their side. So instead of panicking because they are changing 'Darwinian Dogma,' sit it out. You might end up deifying this team in the end. They might end up doing for evolution what Einstein did for physics. And that is, turning what is known on its head and making it even more solid.

Originally posted by undo
From the article:

"Well there's 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there's 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that's 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There's only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe. Are you stunned?"

Yeah, I'd say that's pretty stunning!!

In other words, enough information, already exist in the genom and it's combination with other genom; to make an endless amount of unique individuals, within each kind of life. -Howie

[edit on 5-3-2008 by Howie47]

Here's an interesting concept:

Horizontal gene transfer

It's one of the reasons that people are opposed to GM crops. They're afraid of HGT allowing resistant genes to be incorporated into bacterial genomes as animals eat the crops and the gut bacteria (and others) process their feces.

If endogenous viral incorporation and HGT are two of the drivers of evolution, then to a large extent neo-Darwinism is wrong and Lamarkian type evolution might be possible.

From link above:

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT), also Lateral gene transfer (LGT), is any process in which an organism transfers genetic material to another cell that is not its offspring. By contrast, vertical transfer occurs when an organism receives genetic material from its ancestor, e.g. its parent or a species from which it evolved. Most thinking in genetics has focused on the more prevalent vertical transfer, but there is a recent awareness that horizontal gene transfer is a significant phenomenon.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
reply to post by Howie47

 

[Howie - as believers in God, we have a mission to be true to the facts, even if they make us uncomfortable. Firstly, we have to acknowledge that Natural Selection is a Law of Nature that will occur in bacteria in the lab under selective stresses and occurs peppered moths. We also have to acknowledge that the Earth is billions of years old. Yes the dating is inaccurate but even if it is a billion years out, it is still far away from 6000 years. Moreover, some of us will have to accept the Creation story as allegory (I already have accepted it as allegory/metaphor).]

If your asking if I'm a strict traditionalist at Bible interpretation. I am not! - Howie

[You have mentioned a paradigm shift in Darwinism and you are correct to an extent. However, the theory is being modified to fit other discoveries as melatonin has mentioned (evo-devo involving Hox genes for example and epigenetics). It is basically a synthesis of different scientific theoretical strands to provide a more unified feel to the evolutionary theory which has depended on mutation and natural selection for so long. It is like the Windows Update for evolutionary theory - nothing more. ]

That was the opinion of some of the scientist, interviewed in the article. Did you read the whole thing? Or even my quotes above, form the article?
The over all tone of the article; suggested a much different outcome.
consider this quote, " A wave of scientists now questions natural selection's relevance, though few will publicly admit it."
Also they mention the old "snowflake" argument. Only this time the want to use it to explain where the information in the genome comes from.
Replacing the useless, mutation idea. (snowflake, argument, used to be used to counter entropy.)

Just happened to recall something that might be vaguely related.

A poster mentioned how domesticated pigs, when released into the wild develop tusks, hair and other characteristics of wild pigs in short order.

I've heard about this. If so, it shows that environmental effects can be quite powerful. I'd suspect some kind of hormone dis-inhibition, maybe related to a change in diet or something.

feral pigs


[edit on 5-3-2008 by Badge01]

reply to post by Badge01


Kind of like how grasshoppers transform into locusts. But that's not really evolution, is it?

reply to post by Beachcoma


No, but the idea of HGT and Endo-retrovirus-DNA opens up possibilities.

Obviously even if an animal could change radically due to environmental pressures, there's no known mechanism that would translate this into his genome, allowing this -new- trait to be conferred to his direct ancestors. That' direct Lamarkian evolution.

If we lopped off the little toe, our kids would still have five toes...unless we did it due to Gamma radiation. (hulks out).

Haha, imagine the coming era of plastic surgery where really non-symmetrical people, men and women, would get makeovers to become symmetrical and 'pretty', get married become runway models and then give birth to these gawd-awful kids that look like Alfred E. Newman.

Cue endoscopic neonatal face lifts, eh?







[edit on 5-3-2008 by Badge01]

Originally posted by Badge01
Cue endoscopic neonatal face lifts, eh?

Forget that. Since we're talking about retroviruses now, how about neonatal gene-therapy for vanity's sake?

Good plot for a sci-fi short story. Wanna do a collaborative fiction on that?

Originally posted by Badge01
Just happened to recall something that might be vaguely related.

A poster mentioned how domesticated pigs, when released into the wild develop tusks, hair and other characteristics of wild pigs in short order.

I've heard about this. If so, it shows that environmental effects can be quite powerful. I'd suspect some kind of hormone dis-inhibition, maybe related to a change in diet or something.

feral pigs


[edit on 5-3-2008 by Badge01]

It also shows, that the information for these changes are already in the genes. "latent genes". No mutations is necessary!

[edit on 5-3-2008 by Howie47]

Actually, I figured it out on my bike ride.

Domesticated pigs develop anti-feraltocin hormone. It's passed on through the vomernasal organ as a pheremone.

When formerly feral reverts are brought into the sty, this hormone triggers the pituitary and it sends out the required signal.

When released into the wild, the absence of anti-feraltocin permits slowed re-uptake of the feraltocin and the traits develop in rapid fashion.

It can't be anything that other feral pigs emit, because in their absence feral reversion still occurs.

In fact to rule out environmental factors I'll submit a grant request to NIH to send several domesticated pigs on a cruise. (Hey, don't laugh, bet that's already happened!)

Work-safe pig cartoon:

It does not seem that difficult to comprehend. They seem to be saying in addition to Natural Selection, random chance is in play. Random is not quantifiable and it wreaks havoc with the overly pragmatic minds of scientists in general.

Originally posted by Badge01
Here's an interesting concept:

Horizontal gene transfer

It's one of the reasons that people are opposed to GM crops. They're afraid of HGT allowing resistant genes to be incorporated into bacterial genomes as animals eat the crops and the gut bacteria (and others) process their feces.

If endogenous viral incorporation and HGT are two of the drivers of evolution, then to a large extent neo-Darwinism is wrong and Lamarkian type evolution might be possible.

i usually have an instinct for things without knowing the science,and this seems to back up those instincts.for some reason i know what you just said is true,that lamarkian type evolution is very much in affect possibly to a larger extent that natural selection.

for the intelligent designists,why cant life itself have been intelligently designed at the start yet given the free will to evolve and change?.doesnt life have free will?,and free will would mean you determine your own evolution right? and if what badge01 has shown above is true,then indeed free will is determning evolution!.

on another note,couldnt god be behind natural selection?,that god is actually changing the environment,causing the droughts, storms that his creations have the free will to adapt to?.that he is the one creating those mutations and benificial adaptionations!,it makes sense doesnt it?

[edit on 5-3-2008 by welivefortheson]

The article is very short on any real information, and from what I could deduce, they are only talking about neodarwinisme.. And repackaging an already established idea, isnt really a new paradigme at all.