Challenging the Evolution Industry
September 1, 2008 11:34 PM Subscribe
Rethinking Evolution with Stuart Newman, The New Master Of Evolution? Video Interview: Evolution Politics. A reformulation of the theory of evolution. Susan Mazur presents most of the players in her latest e-book: Will the Real Theory of Evolution Please Stand Up?
Part two Part three Part four Part five Part six
Part two Part three Part four Part five Part six
Stuart Newman is a graceful man, about 6'1" with the hands of a microsurgeon – which he is. He is dressed in casual European elegance with sleeves turned up. I try not to be, but am affected by his sincerity and focus. There is an exotic twist to his hair, which in earlier photos makes him look North African.
LOL Counterpunch.
posted by gsteff at 12:26 AM on September 2, 2008
LOL Counterpunch.
posted by gsteff at 12:26 AM on September 2, 2008
Crap here is a missing link.
"Charles Darwin's theory was last updated 70 years ago. "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" is the working title of the new one.
In a phone interview, Stuart Newman told me that some of his work on the theory of form -- which the current evolutionary formula lacks -- was done in collaboration with Gerd Muller, a theoretical biologist at the University of Vienna. Muller is also one of the organizers of the Altenberg symposium. "
posted by hortense at 12:31 AM on September 2, 2008
"Charles Darwin's theory was last updated 70 years ago. "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" is the working title of the new one.
In a phone interview, Stuart Newman told me that some of his work on the theory of form -- which the current evolutionary formula lacks -- was done in collaboration with Gerd Muller, a theoretical biologist at the University of Vienna. Muller is also one of the organizers of the Altenberg symposium. "
posted by hortense at 12:31 AM on September 2, 2008
More like Cockpunch, amirite. Talk about being in love with your typewriter.
posted by The Monkey at 12:33 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by The Monkey at 12:33 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Wai, wait, wait... A missing link in a post about evolution?
posted by The Monkey at 12:34 AM on September 2, 2008 [5 favorites]
posted by The Monkey at 12:34 AM on September 2, 2008 [5 favorites]
Interestingly, Newman says this part of evolutionary history turns the Darwinian theory upside down in the sense that natural selection is not central.
If I understand what he's saying, Newman argues that individual cells, when grouped with other cells, have a built-in tendency to form certain patterns. These patterns (such as the arms and legs of many species having one proximal and two distal bones) appear pre-determined rather than the result of natural selection.
Read anything by Richard Dawkins and you'll be beaten over the head with the observation that that natural selection is NOT random selection. Newman doesn't contradict this per se, but he seems to be saying that there is also a non-randomness is in how the cells arrange themselves. Natural selection merely "locks" in the result.
It's not an entirely crazy idea. Even a hard core natural selection guy has to admit that if the selection is non-random, there has to be some reason for this nonrandom behaviour (which one might call intelligence.)Newman's not really then so radical argument is that this non-random behaviour is on both sides of the equation.
Either way, the literal explanation in the King James version of the Bible is wrong.
Fascinating stuff.
posted by three blind mice at 12:41 AM on September 2, 2008
If I understand what he's saying, Newman argues that individual cells, when grouped with other cells, have a built-in tendency to form certain patterns. These patterns (such as the arms and legs of many species having one proximal and two distal bones) appear pre-determined rather than the result of natural selection.
Read anything by Richard Dawkins and you'll be beaten over the head with the observation that that natural selection is NOT random selection. Newman doesn't contradict this per se, but he seems to be saying that there is also a non-randomness is in how the cells arrange themselves. Natural selection merely "locks" in the result.
It's not an entirely crazy idea. Even a hard core natural selection guy has to admit that if the selection is non-random, there has to be some reason for this nonrandom behaviour (which one might call intelligence.)Newman's not really then so radical argument is that this non-random behaviour is on both sides of the equation.
Either way, the literal explanation in the King James version of the Bible is wrong.
Fascinating stuff.
posted by three blind mice at 12:41 AM on September 2, 2008
Even a hard core natural selection guy has to admit [...]
Just because it's prima facie compelling doesn't mean it isn't complete bullshit. I have to admit nothing until more science is done.
posted by The Monkey at 12:48 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Just because it's prima facie compelling doesn't mean it isn't complete bullshit. I have to admit nothing until more science is done.
posted by The Monkey at 12:48 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
great post, i also like the counterpunch article, thanks.
posted by Substrata at 12:50 AM on September 2, 2008
posted by Substrata at 12:50 AM on September 2, 2008
If I understand what he's saying, Newman argues that individual cells, when grouped with other cells, have a built-in tendency to form certain patterns. These patterns (such as the arms and legs of many species having one proximal and two distal bones) appear pre-determined rather than the result of natural selection.
Pre-determined only after these organization patterns were selected for in the Cambrian. This isn't an anti selection argument in any way shape or form.
posted by afu at 1:15 AM on September 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
Pre-determined only after these organization patterns were selected for in the Cambrian. This isn't an anti selection argument in any way shape or form.
posted by afu at 1:15 AM on September 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
Just because it's prima facie compelling doesn't mean it isn't complete bullshit.
Non-random selection is more or less central to the science of evolutionary. It is the opposite of chance. I'll admit that this is not fact, but it is as much "bullshit" as any other long-held, intensely researched scientific theory is.
Newman's theory doesn't contradict natural selection, he just extends the idea a bit to say that if there is non-randomness in the selection by organisms, why not non-randomness in the mutation of organisms?
posted by three blind mice at 1:16 AM on September 2, 2008
Non-random selection is more or less central to the science of evolutionary. It is the opposite of chance. I'll admit that this is not fact, but it is as much "bullshit" as any other long-held, intensely researched scientific theory is.
Newman's theory doesn't contradict natural selection, he just extends the idea a bit to say that if there is non-randomness in the selection by organisms, why not non-randomness in the mutation of organisms?
posted by three blind mice at 1:16 AM on September 2, 2008
Here's the money sentence from the abstract of Newman's main DPM paper.
This perspective also solves the apparent 'molecular homology-analogy paradox', whereby widely divergent modern animal types utilize the same molecular toolkit during development by proposing, in contrast to the Neo-Darwinian principle, that phenotypic disparity early in evolution occurred in advance of, rather than closely tracked, genotypic change.
Newman is arguing that the wide varieties we see in phenotypes, that is the physical structure of organisms, was established fairly early in evolutionary time and that this varitie was able to take place without the equivalent large changes in genotype (thought I assume there must be some changes in the genotype). I'm not totally clear on what the Neo-Darwinian principle is, I would guess it would be that no large phenotypic change can occur without a concurrent change in the genotype.
posted by afu at 1:30 AM on September 2, 2008
This perspective also solves the apparent 'molecular homology-analogy paradox', whereby widely divergent modern animal types utilize the same molecular toolkit during development by proposing, in contrast to the Neo-Darwinian principle, that phenotypic disparity early in evolution occurred in advance of, rather than closely tracked, genotypic change.
Newman is arguing that the wide varieties we see in phenotypes, that is the physical structure of organisms, was established fairly early in evolutionary time and that this varitie was able to take place without the equivalent large changes in genotype (thought I assume there must be some changes in the genotype). I'm not totally clear on what the Neo-Darwinian principle is, I would guess it would be that no large phenotypic change can occur without a concurrent change in the genotype.
posted by afu at 1:30 AM on September 2, 2008
Having now read through a few chapters of the Mazur's ebook, I have to say that there may be an interesting story in here about research suggesting an increased role for epigenetics in evolution, but it's completely obscured by Mazur's paranoiac writing. The whole thing ridiculously unobjective, and it seems like she doesn't really understand the science, and is primarily enthusiastic about this topic because she believe that evolution by natural selection has served as a political justification for capitalism. Her unintentionally hilarious interview with Richard Lewontin really summarizes the whole article series for me. Whenever Lewontin says that he doesn't really understand what she's talking about, she takes that as evidence of how courageously iconoclastic the idea of self-organization outside of genetics is:
posted by gsteff at 1:32 AM on September 2, 2008 [9 favorites]
Suzan Mazur: So you wouldn’t characterize Steve Gould as someone embracing self-organization then.And...
Richard Lewontin: I don’t even know what self-organization is. Self-organization is a very confusing term to me.
Suzan Mazur: To everyone. But they all seem to working in it.
Richard Lewontin: Yeah. I understand. What I’m trying to tell you is – for me at least that’s not science. If I can’t do experiments that relate directly to a very clear and logical hypothesis – I don’t want to talk about self-organization. I don’t know what it means.The very brief discussion with Richard Dawkins likewise. The whole piece is ridiculously unobjective and breathless, and most of the academics she cites are philosophers, not biologists. Again, there seems like there may be an interesting story about epigenetics in there, but it will have to be written by a more competent journalist.
Suzan Mazur: Have you heard about the theory that Stuart Pivar has been discussing.
Richard Lewontin: Stuart who?
Suzan Mazur: Stuart Pivar. He’s a chemist and mechanical engineer.
Richard Lewontin: Sorry, I don’t know.
Suzan Mazur: He has a theory that form originates from a pattern in the egg cell membrane.
Richard Lewontin: I don’t know what his theory is but there’s no question that the development of an egg is not dependent solely on the genes and nucleus, but depends on the structure of the egg as laid down to some extent. There are proteins that are there. There are non-genetic factors and I wouldn’t be surprised if the actual structure of the cell membrane had some influence on the successive divisions that occur.
But it’s one thing to say some effect than it is to say I have a theory that it’s all there.
Look, I think you should take – every time somebody says I have a new theory, I suggest you turn off your hearing aid.
Suzan Mazur: Now there are some arrows being flung in your direction regarding your economic – the economic view that you have.
Richard Lewontin: What have they got to do with evolution?
Suzan Mazur: I was just wondering if you consider that unfair. I mean this whole discussion of capitalism, etc.
Richard Lewontin: Well what about it? What does it have to do with evolution?
posted by gsteff at 1:32 AM on September 2, 2008 [9 favorites]
Nothing in Newman's work justifies the hype that Suzan Mazur is attempting to wrap it with. Here is the planet's best known spokesdarwinist as quoted in chapter 10 of her "book", apologies for the length:
Suzan Mazur: Richard Dawkins.net recently picked up my story [“Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?”] about a meeting at Altenberg in July called “Toward an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis,” which is believed will move us a bit away from the gene-centered view. Natural selection is under attack and the feeling is that the really interesting evo stuff has to do with form, which we currently have no theory for. I wondered whether you were asked to participate in the Altenberg symposium and what your thoughts are about a remix of the Synthesis?posted by Canard de Vasco at 1:48 AM on September 2, 2008 [3 favorites]
Richard Dawkins: The question is about a recent symposium at Altenberg in Austria.
Suzan Mazur: No. It’s coming up in July. I was wondering if you were invited?
Richard Dawkins: Sorry, it hasn’t happened yet are you telling me?
Suzan Mazur: No, it’s coming up in July, to remix the theory of evolution essentially.
Richard Dawkins: About development as well?
Suzan Mazur: It seems a move away a bit from the gene-centered view.
Richard Dawkins: You’ve been taken in by the rhetoric.
Suzan Mazur: You posted it on your web site – my story.
Richard Dawkins: You asked the question: Have I been invited? I’m sorry to say I get invited to lots of things and I literally can’t remember whether I was invited to this particular one or not. [some laughter]
Suzan Mazur: But it’s being viewed as a major event.
Richard Dawkins: By whom I wonder. [some laughter]
Suzan Mazur: You might have a look at the story I put up.
Richard Dawkins: No. I’m sorry I’ve got to answer the question now.
I gather that it’s an attack on the gene-centered view of evolution and a substitution of the theory of form.
The theory of form I presume dates back to D’Arcy Thompson, who was a distinguished Scottish zoologist who wrote a book called On Growth and Form and who purported to be anti-Darwinian. In fact, he never really talked about the real problems that Darwinism solves, which is the problem of adaptation.
Now D’Arcy Thompson and other people who stress the word form emphasize the laws of physics. Physical principles alone as on their own adequate to explain the form of organisms. So for example, D’Arcy Thompson would look at the way a rubber tube would get reshaped when crushed and he would find analogies to that in living organisms.
I see a lot of value in that kind of approach. It is something we can’t as biologists afford to neglect. However, it absolutely neglects the question where does the illusion of design come from? Where do animals and plants get this powerful impression that they have been brilliantly designed for a purpose? Where does that come from?
That does not come from the laws of physics on their own. That cannot come from anything that has so far been suggested by anybody other than natural selection. So I don’t see any conflict at all between the theory of natural selection – the gene-centered theory of natural selection, I should say – and the theory of form. We need both. We need both. And it is disingenuous to present the one as antagonistic to the other.
Jesus, Suzan Mazur is annoying. In that interview with Newman she keeps pushing him to say controversial things at the expensive of an interesting debate over the issues. It basically come down to a debate between Darwinian gradualism and saltational development which is an interesting debate, but it is hardly the cultural changing fight that Mazur is trying to make it out to be.
posted by afu at 2:12 AM on September 2, 2008
posted by afu at 2:12 AM on September 2, 2008
I gather that it’s an attack on the gene-centered view of evolution and a substitution of the theory of form.
Only to a limited extent, I think. I believe Newman is saying that there was a period in the pre-Cambrian when different phenotypical forms appeared through self-organisation irrespective of the genetics and selection which the standard view regards as fundamental to speciation. But after that limited period, genes take over and everything proceeds as in the standard view.
The case appears to be that divergent modern organisms use similar genetic mechanisms, but on the face of it that doesn't seem to me a big problem for the standard view. Perhaps Newman's full paper makes a stronger case.
posted by Phanx at 2:33 AM on September 2, 2008
Only to a limited extent, I think. I believe Newman is saying that there was a period in the pre-Cambrian when different phenotypical forms appeared through self-organisation irrespective of the genetics and selection which the standard view regards as fundamental to speciation. But after that limited period, genes take over and everything proceeds as in the standard view.
The case appears to be that divergent modern organisms use similar genetic mechanisms, but on the face of it that doesn't seem to me a big problem for the standard view. Perhaps Newman's full paper makes a stronger case.
posted by Phanx at 2:33 AM on September 2, 2008
Here is the planet's best known spokesdarwinist
I'm not trying to get your case, Canard, but is "Darwinist" now a legitimate term for people that adhere to Darwin-as-stated evolutionary theory as opposed to other branches of evolutionary theory?
I've seen that term used, to date, almost exclusively by Jack Chick types. Does it have some sort of intelligent application?
posted by Shepherd at 4:07 AM on September 2, 2008
I'm not trying to get your case, Canard, but is "Darwinist" now a legitimate term for people that adhere to Darwin-as-stated evolutionary theory as opposed to other branches of evolutionary theory?
I've seen that term used, to date, almost exclusively by Jack Chick types. Does it have some sort of intelligent application?
posted by Shepherd at 4:07 AM on September 2, 2008
So what is he saying beyond "Some forms are reachable easily, those are the ones you might find, and the tool kit determining these evolved much earlier over a longer period of time."
posted by jeffburdges at 4:26 AM on September 2, 2008
posted by jeffburdges at 4:26 AM on September 2, 2008
Shepherd,
It's no big deal, I needed a word and my brain found "darwinist". For all I know it was invented by creationists and it is certainly a tool in their propaganda, but I know what they mean by it. I'm a biologist and not a writer, so I would never claim that I apply my words intelligently, that's why I usually just quote people like Dawkins instead. Also the term legitimate term troubles me at least as much as darwinist so I'm not going to dwell on the matter.
posted by Canard de Vasco at 5:06 AM on September 2, 2008
It's no big deal, I needed a word and my brain found "darwinist". For all I know it was invented by creationists and it is certainly a tool in their propaganda, but I know what they mean by it. I'm a biologist and not a writer, so I would never claim that I apply my words intelligently, that's why I usually just quote people like Dawkins instead. Also the term legitimate term troubles me at least as much as darwinist so I'm not going to dwell on the matter.
posted by Canard de Vasco at 5:06 AM on September 2, 2008
Shepherd writes "I'm not trying to get your case, Canard, but is 'Darwinist' now a legitimate term for people that adhere to Darwin-as-stated evolutionary theory as opposed to other branches of evolutionary theory? "
"Darwinist" is a slur used by creationists. "Modern evolutionary synthesis" or sometimes "neo-Darwinism" describes the orthodox scientific position. ("Neo-Darwinism" may also be used to more particularly refer to Weismanism.)
posted by orthogonality at 5:07 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
"Darwinist" is a slur used by creationists. "Modern evolutionary synthesis" or sometimes "neo-Darwinism" describes the orthodox scientific position. ("Neo-Darwinism" may also be used to more particularly refer to Weismanism.)
posted by orthogonality at 5:07 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Good to know. Again, I wasn't trying to call anyone out, I was genuinely curious about the evolution (ha ha) of the word and whether it had been co-opted by the scientific community for use.
posted by Shepherd at 5:13 AM on September 2, 2008
posted by Shepherd at 5:13 AM on September 2, 2008
I've been reading the stuff in Mazur's books and find myself completly confused.
There's this from Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini:
" The point is, however, that organisms can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated.
For that, major changes in regulatory genes and in gene regulatory networks have to occur. All this is perfectly naturalistic and now well documented. Minor changes in the order of activation of master genes can create vast discontinuous morphogenetic changes."
But how the hell did the "major changes in regulatory genes and in gene regulatory networks" happen if not through natural selection or other mainstream evelotionary processes? I'm baffled as to what their argument against gene based evolution or selection even is.
posted by afu at 5:20 AM on September 2, 2008
There's this from Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini:
" The point is, however, that organisms can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated.
For that, major changes in regulatory genes and in gene regulatory networks have to occur. All this is perfectly naturalistic and now well documented. Minor changes in the order of activation of master genes can create vast discontinuous morphogenetic changes."
But how the hell did the "major changes in regulatory genes and in gene regulatory networks" happen if not through natural selection or other mainstream evelotionary processes? I'm baffled as to what their argument against gene based evolution or selection even is.
posted by afu at 5:20 AM on September 2, 2008
Stuart Kauffman has been saying this for years.
For those confused, the basic point is that matter 'prefers' certain configurations. A good physical metaphor is that of the limit cycle, in which a system will self-organize into stable oscillations. The hypothesis is this is a very good potential source of evolutionary form.
posted by norabarnacl3 at 5:36 AM on September 2, 2008
For those confused, the basic point is that matter 'prefers' certain configurations. A good physical metaphor is that of the limit cycle, in which a system will self-organize into stable oscillations. The hypothesis is this is a very good potential source of evolutionary form.
posted by norabarnacl3 at 5:36 AM on September 2, 2008
Wow, Mazur's writing is utterly incomprehensible. Reading through it, I'm not even sure it attains the level of Medawar's takedown of Teilhard: "There is an argument in it, to be sure - a feeble argument, abominably expressed". I genuinely have no idea what she's trying to tell us, beyond using scary words about the current state of evolutionary science.
As best I can make out, afu is right in saying that it sounds like she's talking about some sort of saltation, which is hardly new (and gets less interesting or plausible as bolder and bolder claims are made for it). Of course, this may all be terribly unfair to Newman, who quite possibly doesn't deserve having such a crackpot disseminating crazied-up interpretations of his work.
posted by flashboy at 5:46 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
As best I can make out, afu is right in saying that it sounds like she's talking about some sort of saltation, which is hardly new (and gets less interesting or plausible as bolder and bolder claims are made for it). Of course, this may all be terribly unfair to Newman, who quite possibly doesn't deserve having such a crackpot disseminating crazied-up interpretations of his work.
posted by flashboy at 5:46 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
So 30 seconds of googling comes up with some other Articles by SUZAN MAUZUR:
Time to Rescind Utah's Statehood?
Peak Oil: Debate or Vendetta?
posted by delmoi at 6:08 AM on September 2, 2008
Time to Rescind Utah's Statehood?
Peak Oil: Debate or Vendetta?
posted by delmoi at 6:08 AM on September 2, 2008
But how the hell did the "major changes in regulatory genes and in gene regulatory networks" happen if not through natural selection or other mainstream evelotionary processes? I'm baffled as to what their argument against gene based evolution or selection even is.
That's not an unreasonable statement, it could simply mean that one one hand you have gradual change with a one or two genes changing over time, and on the other hand you have major evolutionary 'events' where a lot of genes mutate over an evolutionarily short period of time, which sounds a lot like Punctuated Equilibrium -- which I remember learning about in my 8th grade biology class :P. I'm not sure if it's really state of the art evolutionary theory these days or not.
I have no idea what's going on with the article, it doesn't really seem worth reading. It's like a hyperbolic parody of the 'bad science writing' tendency to present every scientific theory as some major breakthrough in understanding.
posted by delmoi at 6:15 AM on September 2, 2008
That's not an unreasonable statement, it could simply mean that one one hand you have gradual change with a one or two genes changing over time, and on the other hand you have major evolutionary 'events' where a lot of genes mutate over an evolutionarily short period of time, which sounds a lot like Punctuated Equilibrium -- which I remember learning about in my 8th grade biology class :P. I'm not sure if it's really state of the art evolutionary theory these days or not.
I have no idea what's going on with the article, it doesn't really seem worth reading. It's like a hyperbolic parody of the 'bad science writing' tendency to present every scientific theory as some major breakthrough in understanding.
posted by delmoi at 6:15 AM on September 2, 2008
This is not a new idea, though it hasn't yet fully taken in the mainstream.
And it absolutely does revolutionize the current dogma which says:
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
The basic idea is that the probability of where you end up in morphospace, over evolutionary time, is not only a function of natural selection and historical contingency (oldschool thought), but also a function of these principles of self organization which have a degree of relative autonomy over genetic substrates.
A similar idea can be found in how clouds form. There is a practically infinite set of configurations of water and air molecules involved in the formation of clouds, yet they seem to self organize into discrete classes (hence the terminologies of nimbus, cirrus, etc.)
This idea makes convergent evolution a phenomenon which is statistically more feasible than by purely random selection in similar environments.
Here are a couple good articles, one of which is from Newman:
Goodwin, B.C. (2000) “The Life of Form. Emergent Patterns of Morphological Transformation”, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Sciences de la vie 323, 15-21.
Newman, AS, Muller, GB (2000) “Epigenetic Mechanisms of Character Origination” Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol), 288, 304-17.
posted by spacediver at 6:29 AM on September 2, 2008
And it absolutely does revolutionize the current dogma which says:
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
The basic idea is that the probability of where you end up in morphospace, over evolutionary time, is not only a function of natural selection and historical contingency (oldschool thought), but also a function of these principles of self organization which have a degree of relative autonomy over genetic substrates.
A similar idea can be found in how clouds form. There is a practically infinite set of configurations of water and air molecules involved in the formation of clouds, yet they seem to self organize into discrete classes (hence the terminologies of nimbus, cirrus, etc.)
This idea makes convergent evolution a phenomenon which is statistically more feasible than by purely random selection in similar environments.
Here are a couple good articles, one of which is from Newman:
Goodwin, B.C. (2000) “The Life of Form. Emergent Patterns of Morphological Transformation”, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Sciences de la vie 323, 15-21.
Newman, AS, Muller, GB (2000) “Epigenetic Mechanisms of Character Origination” Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol), 288, 304-17.
posted by spacediver at 6:29 AM on September 2, 2008
And it absolutely does revolutionize the current dogma which says:
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
That's not really a dogma, now, is it? It's more of a soundbite. There are plenty of things in biology that make sense in isolation without needing recourse to evolution; what that phrase indicates is that to properly fit them into the bigger picture, you have to understand how they occur in the context of evolved organisms. And anyway, how does this theory, as you explained it, not involve casting the light of evolution upon the explanation? Saying that some evolutionary pathways are more likely to be followed than others doesn't exactly seem to be kicking evolution to the curb.
This idea makes convergent evolution a phenomenon which is statistically more feasible than by purely random selection in similar environments.
Gwwwwaaaaaaarrggghhhhhhhh.
posted by flashboy at 6:44 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
That's not really a dogma, now, is it? It's more of a soundbite. There are plenty of things in biology that make sense in isolation without needing recourse to evolution; what that phrase indicates is that to properly fit them into the bigger picture, you have to understand how they occur in the context of evolved organisms. And anyway, how does this theory, as you explained it, not involve casting the light of evolution upon the explanation? Saying that some evolutionary pathways are more likely to be followed than others doesn't exactly seem to be kicking evolution to the curb.
This idea makes convergent evolution a phenomenon which is statistically more feasible than by purely random selection in similar environments.
Gwwwwaaaaaaarrggghhhhhhhh.
posted by flashboy at 6:44 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Wai, wait, wait... A missing link in a post about evolution?
posted by The Monkey at 3:34 AM on September 2
Oh, good grief.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:04 AM on September 2, 2008
posted by The Monkey at 3:34 AM on September 2
Oh, good grief.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:04 AM on September 2, 2008
PZ Myers of Pharyngula has been ripping Susan Mazur silly writing all summer. She was on some quest to hype an academic conference this summer as some sort of revolution in biological science that would end the theory of evolution forever. Which was never the point of the conference.
"Unfortunately, one reporter has produced an abominably muddled, utterly worthless and uninformed account of the Altenberg meeting that has been picked up by many crackpots to suggest that evolution is in trouble. This not only ignores a fundamental property of science — that it is always pushing off in new directions — but embarrassingly overinflates the importance of this one meeting. This was a gathering of established scientists with some new proposals. It was not a meeting of the central directorate of the Darwinist cabal to formulate new dogma."
"I get the impression that Mazur is journalist with no sense of proportion and a rather distressing lack of skepticism. This meeting will not revolutionize science. If we're lucky, a few good ideas will emerge from it. More likely, some people will have a good time, they'll learn a few things, and they'll fly back to work and we won't hear about it ever again."
Now, I'm no scientist - I just browse Pharyngula now and then for stories of the evolution vs. creationism stuff - but it sure does sound to me like this Mazur woman is completely clueless and unqualified to be writing on this subject.
posted by dnash at 7:23 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
"Unfortunately, one reporter has produced an abominably muddled, utterly worthless and uninformed account of the Altenberg meeting that has been picked up by many crackpots to suggest that evolution is in trouble. This not only ignores a fundamental property of science — that it is always pushing off in new directions — but embarrassingly overinflates the importance of this one meeting. This was a gathering of established scientists with some new proposals. It was not a meeting of the central directorate of the Darwinist cabal to formulate new dogma."
"I get the impression that Mazur is journalist with no sense of proportion and a rather distressing lack of skepticism. This meeting will not revolutionize science. If we're lucky, a few good ideas will emerge from it. More likely, some people will have a good time, they'll learn a few things, and they'll fly back to work and we won't hear about it ever again."
Now, I'm no scientist - I just browse Pharyngula now and then for stories of the evolution vs. creationism stuff - but it sure does sound to me like this Mazur woman is completely clueless and unqualified to be writing on this subject.
posted by dnash at 7:23 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Scientists agree that natural selection can occur. But the scientific community has known for some time that natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.
Hack journalist unwittingly documents her own cognitive deficiency, achieves postmodern flawless victory.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 7:32 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Hack journalist unwittingly documents her own cognitive deficiency, achieves postmodern flawless victory.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 7:32 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
tbm: It's not an entirely crazy idea. Even a hard core natural selection guy has to admit that if the selection is non-random, there has to be some reason for this nonrandom behaviour (which one might call intelligence.)
FFS. An uninformed cretin might call it intelligence.
Analogy: Sodium likes to combine with some elements, and not others. Could this be because... of protons and electrons and ionization and such, or because God Willed It To Be So?
From this abstract of Newman's paper: We suggest that ancient toolkit gene products, most predating the emergence of multicellularity, assumed novel morphogenetic functions due to change in the scale and context inherent to multicellularity.
Put very simply, Newman is showing a mechanism that suggests that the "coding" for different biological adaptations may have been present much earlier in the evolutionary time-frame, and that this coding likely emerges when simple cells are grouped together.
This differs from the very rudimentary theory that adaptations are simply genetic mutations.
Regardless of the exact mechanism by which adaptations appear, there is widespread agreement that they are selected-for by natural selection. Newman isn't saying ANYTHING different about the process of selection.
Quoting from the abstract again: The morphologically plastic body plans and organ forms generated by DPMs, and their ontogenetic trajectories, would subsequently have been stabilized and consolidated by natural selection and genetic drift.
I hope that's clear. No I.D. required, sorry.
posted by Artful Codger at 7:41 AM on September 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
FFS. An uninformed cretin might call it intelligence.
Analogy: Sodium likes to combine with some elements, and not others. Could this be because... of protons and electrons and ionization and such, or because God Willed It To Be So?
From this abstract of Newman's paper: We suggest that ancient toolkit gene products, most predating the emergence of multicellularity, assumed novel morphogenetic functions due to change in the scale and context inherent to multicellularity.
Put very simply, Newman is showing a mechanism that suggests that the "coding" for different biological adaptations may have been present much earlier in the evolutionary time-frame, and that this coding likely emerges when simple cells are grouped together.
This differs from the very rudimentary theory that adaptations are simply genetic mutations.
Regardless of the exact mechanism by which adaptations appear, there is widespread agreement that they are selected-for by natural selection. Newman isn't saying ANYTHING different about the process of selection.
Quoting from the abstract again: The morphologically plastic body plans and organ forms generated by DPMs, and their ontogenetic trajectories, would subsequently have been stabilized and consolidated by natural selection and genetic drift.
I hope that's clear. No I.D. required, sorry.
posted by Artful Codger at 7:41 AM on September 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
The basic idea is that the probability of where you end up in morphospace, over evolutionary time, is not only a function of natural selection and historical contingency (oldschool thought), but also a function of these principles of self organization which have a degree of relative autonomy over genetic substrates.
How do they have autonomy over genetic substrates, when as Lewontin says every multicellular organism "goes through an egg and a sperm"?
posted by afu at 7:49 AM on September 2, 2008
How do they have autonomy over genetic substrates, when as Lewontin says every multicellular organism "goes through an egg and a sperm"?
posted by afu at 7:49 AM on September 2, 2008
Based on what little I got from this link, this sounds very similar to the theories advanced by Christopher Alexander (inventor of "pattern languages") in The Nature of Order.
posted by designbot at 8:53 AM on September 2, 2008
posted by designbot at 8:53 AM on September 2, 2008
Like most popular discussions of evolution, the entire argument is animal-centric. Wake up people! The commonest and oldest forms of life on the planet are, respectively, plants and micro-organisms. The former mock the preoccupation with morphological form and the latter are uninterested in cellular organization.
posted by binturong at 8:55 AM on September 2, 2008
posted by binturong at 8:55 AM on September 2, 2008
Binturong: Plant morphology is a very important part of biology. Indeed, the entire science of morphology, even the term itself, originated with Goethe's botanical studies. And it is primarily in Goethe's work that we have the foundation for the science of form dynamics presented here as an alternative to evolutionary theory. See, for example, the work of Agnes Arber.
posted by No Robots at 9:19 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by No Robots at 9:19 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
This debate reads a whole lot like Steven Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science". It's terribly proud of itself but, OK, so form follows function and hexagons tessellate. I'm with you so far and ready for the next slide. Then I start getting the impression that they are going out of their way to baffle me.
I mean, "ancient toolkit gene products"? What is the ancient toolkit, that they differentiate between it and the modern toolkit? I'm trying to figure out what they mean here. Do they mean RNA or proteins, are they talking about some emergent property of those proteins, or should I just cut to the chase and mentally translate this to read, "elfin magic".
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 10:00 AM on September 2, 2008
I mean, "ancient toolkit gene products"? What is the ancient toolkit, that they differentiate between it and the modern toolkit? I'm trying to figure out what they mean here. Do they mean RNA or proteins, are they talking about some emergent property of those proteins, or should I just cut to the chase and mentally translate this to read, "elfin magic".
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 10:00 AM on September 2, 2008
Binturong, obtain for yourself some logs of oak and some of elm, a maul and a couple splitting wedges. You will observe a distinct morphological difference between the two that is strongly conserved from oak to oak and elm to elm.
The grain in elms spirals one way for a while and then the other. It used to be the wood of choice for applications where splitting would be an issue.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 10:14 AM on September 2, 2008
The grain in elms spirals one way for a while and then the other. It used to be the wood of choice for applications where splitting would be an issue.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 10:14 AM on September 2, 2008
How do they have autonomy over genetic substrates, when as Lewontin says every multicellular organism "goes through an egg and a sperm"?
Because these laws of morphogenesis are thought to be robust across a wide range of genetic instantiations in the same way that the laws that describe the formation of clouds are robust across a wide range of atmospheric configurations.
the processes involved in going from a zygote to a fully developed organism surely are dependent upon the configuration of the nucleic acids which form the genome, but there are other laws at play here such as those which describe the way conglomerates of cells behave in certain environments, and these laws persist despite a wide range of genetic configurations. As the cells develop into more complex states, there are likely higher level laws which describe the patterns of organization at these higher levels of organization.
The idea of morphogenetic fields is also relevant to this discussion, though it is a completely different idea from rupert sheldrakes supernatural notion of a morphogenetic field.
This whole set of ideas is basically similar to those presented in gould and lewontin's spandrels paper, but with a finer and more mathematical articulation.
At its core, it challenges the hard adaptationist line of thinking which states that every interesting and relevant feature of biology can be explained by natural selection alone.
posted by spacediver at 10:46 AM on September 2, 2008
Because these laws of morphogenesis are thought to be robust across a wide range of genetic instantiations in the same way that the laws that describe the formation of clouds are robust across a wide range of atmospheric configurations.
the processes involved in going from a zygote to a fully developed organism surely are dependent upon the configuration of the nucleic acids which form the genome, but there are other laws at play here such as those which describe the way conglomerates of cells behave in certain environments, and these laws persist despite a wide range of genetic configurations. As the cells develop into more complex states, there are likely higher level laws which describe the patterns of organization at these higher levels of organization.
The idea of morphogenetic fields is also relevant to this discussion, though it is a completely different idea from rupert sheldrakes supernatural notion of a morphogenetic field.
This whole set of ideas is basically similar to those presented in gould and lewontin's spandrels paper, but with a finer and more mathematical articulation.
At its core, it challenges the hard adaptationist line of thinking which states that every interesting and relevant feature of biology can be explained by natural selection alone.
posted by spacediver at 10:46 AM on September 2, 2008
That's not really a dogma, now, is it? It's more of a soundbite.
Well 2 years ago I took a bio 150 course at the university of toronto to fill up my last elective. There, in one of the first lectures, to an audience of close to 1500 students, we were taught this dogma as fact. There was an actual slide with that quote and it was presented without any qualification.
And anyway, how does this theory, as you explained it, not involve casting the light of evolution upon the explanation? Saying that some evolutionary pathways are more likely to be followed than others doesn't exactly seem to be kicking evolution to the curb.
I've never claimed that these ideas preclude conventional explanations of natural selection. And you're right - it absolutely doesn't seem to be kicking evolution to the curb. The idea of constraints in evolution has long been understood, perhaps most famously John Maynard Smith (I think it was him) said that mortality is one of the most fundamental constraints.
So yes, it's obvious that pathways that involve an organism comprised of matter and extending in three spatial dimensions are infinitely more likely than others.
And yes, it's clear that pathways that involve organisms who have a certain mass to height ratio are more likely than others.
And yes, the idea of phyletic inertia is at play here, and that subsequent developements of a species will not likely suddenly and radically change the bodyplan.
But up until relatively recently, these constraints were simply acknowledged in token fashion. Now we are starting to realize that the language of "constraints" is not adequate to describe a comprehensive theory of the (phylogenetic and ontogenetic) development of form. There is the possibility of a rich description of laws which describe the organization of biological matter at many levels of organization, from molecular to those involved in gross morphological development.
In a sense, there may be an "a priori" set of laws, mathematically articulable, which have a lot to say about the forms we see today.
posted by spacediver at 11:00 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Well 2 years ago I took a bio 150 course at the university of toronto to fill up my last elective. There, in one of the first lectures, to an audience of close to 1500 students, we were taught this dogma as fact. There was an actual slide with that quote and it was presented without any qualification.
And anyway, how does this theory, as you explained it, not involve casting the light of evolution upon the explanation? Saying that some evolutionary pathways are more likely to be followed than others doesn't exactly seem to be kicking evolution to the curb.
I've never claimed that these ideas preclude conventional explanations of natural selection. And you're right - it absolutely doesn't seem to be kicking evolution to the curb. The idea of constraints in evolution has long been understood, perhaps most famously John Maynard Smith (I think it was him) said that mortality is one of the most fundamental constraints.
So yes, it's obvious that pathways that involve an organism comprised of matter and extending in three spatial dimensions are infinitely more likely than others.
And yes, it's clear that pathways that involve organisms who have a certain mass to height ratio are more likely than others.
And yes, the idea of phyletic inertia is at play here, and that subsequent developements of a species will not likely suddenly and radically change the bodyplan.
But up until relatively recently, these constraints were simply acknowledged in token fashion. Now we are starting to realize that the language of "constraints" is not adequate to describe a comprehensive theory of the (phylogenetic and ontogenetic) development of form. There is the possibility of a rich description of laws which describe the organization of biological matter at many levels of organization, from molecular to those involved in gross morphological development.
In a sense, there may be an "a priori" set of laws, mathematically articulable, which have a lot to say about the forms we see today.
posted by spacediver at 11:00 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Well 2 years ago I took a bio 150 course at the university of toronto to fill up my last elective. There, in one of the first lectures, to an audience of close to 1500 students, we were taught this dogma as fact. There was an actual slide with that quote and it was presented without any qualification.
Yeah, that's because it's true, so long as you zoom out far enough to see the big picture. And it's a useful thing to tell a bunch of non-specialists right at the beginning of an introduction to biology, especially when some of them may not even come from a background that acknowledges evolution as fact (I'm fairly sure that the phrase, and others like it, have their origins in the evolution v creation non-debate). Neither of those things makes it a dogma in the sense you imply - that all theories within biology must be explicitly evolutionary in their nature. The theories will have a hard time if they contradict evolution, but the implication that a specific explanation of any biological fact must include a reference to evolutionary mechanisms is wrong.
In any case, as you acknowledged, nothing we're talking about here could possibly fall under the heading "something in biology that makes sense outside of the light of evolution". These are explicitly hypotheses about the operation of conventional evolution - potentially interesting new additions to the theory, but (as PZ Myers notes) by no means a great honking paradigm shift. So to suggest that this could "revolutionize the current dogma" is wrong on two counts. There's no dogma; there's no revolution.
posted by flashboy at 11:35 AM on September 2, 2008
Yeah, that's because it's true, so long as you zoom out far enough to see the big picture. And it's a useful thing to tell a bunch of non-specialists right at the beginning of an introduction to biology, especially when some of them may not even come from a background that acknowledges evolution as fact (I'm fairly sure that the phrase, and others like it, have their origins in the evolution v creation non-debate). Neither of those things makes it a dogma in the sense you imply - that all theories within biology must be explicitly evolutionary in their nature. The theories will have a hard time if they contradict evolution, but the implication that a specific explanation of any biological fact must include a reference to evolutionary mechanisms is wrong.
In any case, as you acknowledged, nothing we're talking about here could possibly fall under the heading "something in biology that makes sense outside of the light of evolution". These are explicitly hypotheses about the operation of conventional evolution - potentially interesting new additions to the theory, but (as PZ Myers notes) by no means a great honking paradigm shift. So to suggest that this could "revolutionize the current dogma" is wrong on two counts. There's no dogma; there's no revolution.
posted by flashboy at 11:35 AM on September 2, 2008
Thanks spacediver, I understand where these "form" people are coming from now. However, I read the Mueller paper and I'm still not buying it. The claim that during the Cambrian explosion, epigentic factors were more important that genetic ones doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny. The comparisons to spandrels is interesting, spandrels are not selected for, however they are arise from purely genetic mechanisms.
Even if in some of the very of multi cellular organisms attained their forms through epigentic processes, the real evolutionary work was done through the genetic processes which locked these forms into place. I'm also skeptical that these process could have happened in a purely epigentic process, the fact that genes involved in development are so strongly expressed, means that they would be very sensitive to any evolutionary pressure (which is also probably a primary reason they are conserved across such a wide range of organisms.)
I guess if someone was so dogmatic as to say that all function must come from selection, (Pinker comes to mind), this theory would be a blow to them. But I think they go to far in claiming that the epigentic factors were ever more important than genetic ones. It still comes back to that one sperm and egg.
posted by afu at 11:45 AM on September 2, 2008
Even if in some of the very of multi cellular organisms attained their forms through epigentic processes, the real evolutionary work was done through the genetic processes which locked these forms into place. I'm also skeptical that these process could have happened in a purely epigentic process, the fact that genes involved in development are so strongly expressed, means that they would be very sensitive to any evolutionary pressure (which is also probably a primary reason they are conserved across such a wide range of organisms.)
I guess if someone was so dogmatic as to say that all function must come from selection, (Pinker comes to mind), this theory would be a blow to them. But I think they go to far in claiming that the epigentic factors were ever more important than genetic ones. It still comes back to that one sperm and egg.
posted by afu at 11:45 AM on September 2, 2008
It's no big deal, I needed a word and my brain found "darwinist". For all I know it was invented by creationists and it is certainly a tool in their propaganda, but I know what they mean by it.
And 'zionist' might be a convenient term to describe fans of the idea of a Jewish state in Israel, but you'd be silly to use it, for much the same reasons.
posted by rodgerd at 11:58 AM on September 2, 2008
And 'zionist' might be a convenient term to describe fans of the idea of a Jewish state in Israel, but you'd be silly to use it, for much the same reasons.
posted by rodgerd at 11:58 AM on September 2, 2008
Has anyone published the formula for these somewhere? Like 1. Frame obscure subpoint of evolutionary theory in pseudoscientific language...
posted by Tehanu at 12:37 PM on September 2, 2008
posted by Tehanu at 12:37 PM on September 2, 2008
Yeah, that's because it's true, so long as you zoom out far enough to see the big picture.
But that assumes that natural selection is the big picture here, when in fact it may not be. Random mutation, sexual recombination, copying errors, etc. being selected for are definitely players that help shape form.
But it is not the only player.
That said, I do appreciate your point about how the soundbite may be contextualized within a creationist vs evolution debate.
I have only a casual interest in the field as it is not my specialty, and you may be correct in saying these ideas are not completely underground. But they certainly haven't percolated down to the mainstream in the same sense that natural selection has.
And there's a damn good reason this hasn't happened yet - the field is relatively new, and we simply don't have enough information to feed a theory worth establishing in the mainstream yet.
But I strongly suspect that by the time these ideas have been more fleshed out, our whole discourse around evolution is going to change. It's likely going to be a story involving "attractor states" which themselves are selected for by natural selection. In order to do this we need to discover exactly what these attractor states are - there has been progress in this field, for example it has been shown that there are only about 1000 three dimensional “templates” into which proteins tend to configure.
( Denton MJ, Dearden PK, Sowerby SJ (2003) “Physical law not natural selection as the major determinant of biological complexity in the subcellular realm: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law” Biosystems 71, 297-303. )
Surely an scientific project that seeks to explain the emergence of current biological form is missing something rather important if it fails to discover these attractor states, which can be mapped out independently of historical contingency.
Neither of those things makes it a dogma in the sense you imply - that all theories within biology must be explicitly evolutionary in their nature. The theories will have a hard time if they contradict evolution, but the implication that a specific explanation of any biological fact must include a reference to evolutionary mechanisms is wrong.
I should be a bit more clear about the term dogma here. I am not using it in the pejorative sense, but rather in the functional sense. I'm fairly certain that almost all biologists, exposed to these ideas, will naturally adapt their understanding accordingly. But the party line that does exist simply does not take these new ideas into account, and that is because these ideas (in their current form) are relatively new. Science requires a bit of institutional dogma to remain stable, and so long as it adapts over time (as I'm convinced it will in this case) there is nothing wrong with the system.
posted by spacediver at 4:42 PM on September 2, 2008
But that assumes that natural selection is the big picture here, when in fact it may not be. Random mutation, sexual recombination, copying errors, etc. being selected for are definitely players that help shape form.
But it is not the only player.
That said, I do appreciate your point about how the soundbite may be contextualized within a creationist vs evolution debate.
I have only a casual interest in the field as it is not my specialty, and you may be correct in saying these ideas are not completely underground. But they certainly haven't percolated down to the mainstream in the same sense that natural selection has.
And there's a damn good reason this hasn't happened yet - the field is relatively new, and we simply don't have enough information to feed a theory worth establishing in the mainstream yet.
But I strongly suspect that by the time these ideas have been more fleshed out, our whole discourse around evolution is going to change. It's likely going to be a story involving "attractor states" which themselves are selected for by natural selection. In order to do this we need to discover exactly what these attractor states are - there has been progress in this field, for example it has been shown that there are only about 1000 three dimensional “templates” into which proteins tend to configure.
( Denton MJ, Dearden PK, Sowerby SJ (2003) “Physical law not natural selection as the major determinant of biological complexity in the subcellular realm: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law” Biosystems 71, 297-303. )
Surely an scientific project that seeks to explain the emergence of current biological form is missing something rather important if it fails to discover these attractor states, which can be mapped out independently of historical contingency.
Neither of those things makes it a dogma in the sense you imply - that all theories within biology must be explicitly evolutionary in their nature. The theories will have a hard time if they contradict evolution, but the implication that a specific explanation of any biological fact must include a reference to evolutionary mechanisms is wrong.
I should be a bit more clear about the term dogma here. I am not using it in the pejorative sense, but rather in the functional sense. I'm fairly certain that almost all biologists, exposed to these ideas, will naturally adapt their understanding accordingly. But the party line that does exist simply does not take these new ideas into account, and that is because these ideas (in their current form) are relatively new. Science requires a bit of institutional dogma to remain stable, and so long as it adapts over time (as I'm convinced it will in this case) there is nothing wrong with the system.
posted by spacediver at 4:42 PM on September 2, 2008
Thanks spacediver, I understand where these "form" people are coming from now. However, I read the Mueller paper and I'm still not buying it. The claim that during the Cambrian explosion, epigentic factors were more important that genetic ones doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny. The comparisons to spandrels is interesting, spandrels are not selected for, however they are arise from purely genetic mechanisms.
I haven't read the contents of the fpp, so cannot comment. I hastily barged into this thread and I am therefore not in a position to defend the original article, though I have read Muller's 2000 paper: Newman, AS, Muller, GB (2000) “Epigenetic Mechanisms of Character Origination” Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol), 288, 304-17 and found nothing wrong with it at all - it was extremely well written and conservative.
I've noticed throughout your postings you are speaking in the language of purely genetic or purely epigenetic. This doesn't make sense. There is no such thing as purely genetic or purely epigenetic. Genes by necessity require an environment to be expressed. This environment is the epigenetic environment. Without the epigenetic environment you'd have a bunch of nucleic acids floating in space.
posted by spacediver at 4:47 PM on September 2, 2008
I haven't read the contents of the fpp, so cannot comment. I hastily barged into this thread and I am therefore not in a position to defend the original article, though I have read Muller's 2000 paper: Newman, AS, Muller, GB (2000) “Epigenetic Mechanisms of Character Origination” Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol), 288, 304-17 and found nothing wrong with it at all - it was extremely well written and conservative.
I've noticed throughout your postings you are speaking in the language of purely genetic or purely epigenetic. This doesn't make sense. There is no such thing as purely genetic or purely epigenetic. Genes by necessity require an environment to be expressed. This environment is the epigenetic environment. Without the epigenetic environment you'd have a bunch of nucleic acids floating in space.
posted by spacediver at 4:47 PM on September 2, 2008
This is the paragraph in the Muller paper I am having a hard time buying,
We propose that a synthetic, causal understanding of both development and evolution of morphology can be achieved by relinquishing a gene-centered view of these processes. This is not to say that programmed gene expression plays an unimportant role during embryogenesis, or that random genetic change is not a major factor of evolution. But we argue, in agreement with some earlier writers (Ho and Saunders ’79; Oyama ’85; Seilacher ’91; Goodwin ’94), that these factors are not explanatory of morphology in either of these settings. What replaces gene sequence variation and gene expression as morphological determinants in our framework are epigenetic processes: initially the physics of condensed, excitable media represented by primitive cell aggregates, and later conditional responses of tissues to each other, as well as to external forces. These determinants are considered to have set out the original morphological templates during the evolution of bodies and organs, and to have remained, to varying extents, effective causal factors in all modern multicellular organisms.
posted by afu at 8:36 PM on September 2, 2008
We propose that a synthetic, causal understanding of both development and evolution of morphology can be achieved by relinquishing a gene-centered view of these processes. This is not to say that programmed gene expression plays an unimportant role during embryogenesis, or that random genetic change is not a major factor of evolution. But we argue, in agreement with some earlier writers (Ho and Saunders ’79; Oyama ’85; Seilacher ’91; Goodwin ’94), that these factors are not explanatory of morphology in either of these settings. What replaces gene sequence variation and gene expression as morphological determinants in our framework are epigenetic processes: initially the physics of condensed, excitable media represented by primitive cell aggregates, and later conditional responses of tissues to each other, as well as to external forces. These determinants are considered to have set out the original morphological templates during the evolution of bodies and organs, and to have remained, to varying extents, effective causal factors in all modern multicellular organisms.
posted by afu at 8:36 PM on September 2, 2008
Yes I'd take issue with the phrasing of epigenetic processes as replacing gene expression.
To me, it would be more accurate to say that epigenetic processes interact with the gene sequence.
posted by spacediver at 9:39 PM on September 2, 2008
To me, it would be more accurate to say that epigenetic processes interact with the gene sequence.
posted by spacediver at 9:39 PM on September 2, 2008
actually I want to read this paper properly before taking issue.
posted by spacediver at 10:46 PM on September 2, 2008
posted by spacediver at 10:46 PM on September 2, 2008
Well, I'd hesitate to say that this entirely cuts out microbiology. Microbiology is fundamentally about chemical constraints on how energy is used within a system. So as an example, we don't see a super-bacterium able to eat everything in the biosphere, because the energy and matter costs of maintaining genes for every metabolic niche are prohibitively expensive. In the molecule-eat-molecule world of the prokaryote, natural selection favors the lean and mean metabolic specialist that can dominate a particular niche.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:38 PM on September 4, 2008
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:38 PM on September 4, 2008
Because when you are busy fixing carbon via photosynthesis as part of a symbiotic relationship with a fungus, that jug of week-old milk loaded with lactose, proteins, and fatty acids is practically speaking an entirely different universe. And when you are in that jug of milk, you are locked in a death-race to grab as much lactose as you can and reproduce before you are poisoned by increasing lactic acid concentrations.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:50 PM on September 4, 2008
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:50 PM on September 4, 2008
Mmmmmm.... lactose.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:19 AM on September 7, 2008
posted by Artful Codger at 11:19 AM on September 7, 2008
« Older Domino logic | London Transport Museum Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by empath at 12:20 AM on September 2, 2008 [1 favorite]