They can also believe that pipes have a purpose even if they operate by natural processes.The key here is that plumbers can believe in the supernatural, even if they don't spend any time exorcising those demons.
No, I'm saying that evolutionary scientists can believe anything they like about ultimate purpose or lack thereof when it comes to evolution. With few exceptions, living things do not have a mechanism for purposefully altering their genomes. In that sense, evolution proceeds blindly. Anyone who concludes from that that there is purpose or meaning behind evolution is doing philosophy, not science.I don't accept it but I thought that this was something he mentioned speaking as a scientist about evolution. I think the Blind Watchmaker was about the science of natural selection and how it can create complex organisms.
So are you saying that evolutionary scientists believe there is some teleology to evolution.
Good point.They can also believe that pipes have a purpose even if they operate by natural processes.
I have heard this "lactose" evolution before so answer this:Humans in populations that had access to milk developed the ability to digest lactose as adults because of a change in genotype, with the specific change varying by population. There are scores of studies (at least) of natural selection changing phenotypes by changing the genotypes of populations.
Yep. As Darwin pointed out, new traits (we call them mutations because they are new information in the genAnyetic code) plus natural selection makes it work.That recombination of genes may be present, in fact, may always have been present within the human genome. All people may have genetic material to "mutate" to lactose tolerant.
Any new information in the genetic code is a mutation.It is then a "variation" within the species and not an evolutionary mutation.
Caused by mutations. That's what we see happening. Would you like some more examples?There are variations within all species.
Then the original OP is correct.Any new information in the genetic code is a mutation.
So what about when the evolution of certain traits is biased to certain outcomes rather than any outcome. Or when a creature can select its own evolutionary trajectory towards adaptations or environmental changes that produce beneficial heritable outcomes. Or how epigenetics (that is the positive or negative stresses or behaviours implying some sort of agency influencing evolutionary outcomes.No, I'm saying that evolutionary scientists can believe anything they like about ultimate purpose or lack thereof when it comes to evolution. With few exceptions, living things do not have a mechanism for purposefully altering their genomes. In that sense, evolution proceeds blindly. Anyone who concludes from that that there is purpose or meaning behind evolution is doing philosophy, not science.
I couldn't read it as posted so I did some research.You didn't read it, did you?
"Sagers says the previous discoveries in other countries of transgenic canola populations growing outside of cultivation were often in or near fields used for commercial transgenic canola production. By contrast, her research team found feral populations of herbicide-resistant canola growing along roads, near petrol stations and grocery stores, often at large distances from areas of agricultural production."
The answer is that what you've just stated is wrong. It's certainly possible for existing genetic variation to be selected for if selection pressures change (as they did for some humans when they started herding animals). That's call selection on standing variation and we see plenty of it occurring. But we also see plenty of cases of selection for newly arisen mutations. We can tell the difference because the selected genetic variant occurs on a single genetic background (i.e. only one set of other genetic variants nearby on the same chromosome) and brings that background with it when it increases in frequency. That's what we see with lactose tolerance.I have heard this "lactose" evolution before so answer this:
That recombination of genes may be present, in fact, may always have been present within the human genome. All people may have genetic material to "mutate" to lactose tolerant. It is then a "variation" within the species and not an evolutionary mutation.
There are variations within all species.
Again, this is simply false. New variants (which is what GMOs have) may be selected against, so that they fail to thrive in the population. But that is not the same thing as DNA actually repairing itself. We have an enormous amount of data on how DNA behaves and what you're describing isn't true.DNA does repair itself as the genome self-selects what is patterned in to itself, reverting to what we could call an archetype.
Could you list some of the researchers who are being driven batty by this? Because I'm an active researcher in genetics and what you're describing sounds like total fantasy.The curious fact is that even when a GMO or hybridized mutation has usefulness, the organism still reverts to type, not retaining the "useful." That is what is driving researchers batty.
What about it? Natural selection can certainly favor systems that, for example, minimize harmful mutations. Such biases, which occur in a variety of ways, are well-recognized parts of genetics and evolutionary biology. That's not at all the same thing as purposefully altering their genomes. Such alteration does occur, but the only example I can think of is the incorporation of fragments of viral genetic material into bacterial genomes to serve as a template for CRISPR-based defense against that virus in the future.So what about when the evolution of certain traits is biased to certain outcomes rather than any outcome.
What cases are you talking about here? Beyond the limited exception I gave above, I'm not aware of examples of creatures selecting their own evolutionary trajectory, at least if I'm understanding the claim. James Shapiro has argued at length that organisms have the capacity to engineer their own genomes in purposeful ways but he seems to have convinced just about no one in the field except himself.Or when a creature can select its own evolutionary trajectory towards adaptations or environmental changes that produce beneficial heritable outcomes.
Trans-generational epigenetic inheritance certainly occurs, albeit probably less widely than has sometimes been claimed, but it seems to have little evolutionary impact. Again, what cases are you talking about?Or how epigenetics (that is the positive or negative stresses or behaviours implying some sort of agency influencing evolutionary outcomes.
And they all do it. The organism has the inherent ability to do that, and the material to do it. The "variation" occurs in the lab so where in the lab did the organism obtain any "new" material to do that? The organism does that within the limits of inherent ability and pre-existing material. Yes, there are individuals that would be resistant to antibiotics and through selective breeding those strains would become dominant but that is an "variation" not a "new mutation."they will reliably become resistant to the medication because of new mutations that arise in the lab.
I was thinking more along the lines of how creatures interject themselves into the evolutionary process and control outcomes such as environments, nesting, ecosystems, behaviours, cooperative behaviours. They actually direct natural selection sometimes overriding NS or bypassing it altogether towards certain outcomes usually beneficial and hereditary rather than being passively acted upon by outside forces like environmental stresses.What about it? Natural selection can certainly favor systems that, for example, minimize harmful mutations. Such biases, which occur in a variety of ways, are well-recognized parts of genetics and evolutionary biology. That's not at all the same thing as purposefully altering their genomes. Such alteration does occur, but the only example I can think of is the incorporation of fragments of viral genetic material into bacterial genomes to serve as a template for CRISPR-based defense against that virus in the future.
There are a raft of influences such as Inclusive inheritance (epigenetic, behavioural, ecological and cultural forms of inheritance [3,9]),What cases are you talking about here? Beyond the limited exception I gave above, I'm not aware of examples of creatures selecting their own evolutionary trajectory, at least if I'm understanding the claim. James Shapiro has argued at length that organisms have the capacity to engineer their own genomes in purposeful ways but he seems to have convinced just about no one in the field except himself.
The overwhelming picture we see in biology is still that adaptive evolution occurs via natural selection acting on random mutations, where 'random' means the absence of any mechanism by which the organism can select specific beneficial mutations to occur.
Trans-generational epigenetic inheritance certainly occurs, albeit probably less widely than has sometimes been claimed, but it seems to have little evolutionary impact. Again, what cases are you talking about?
Creatures certainly control many things about their environment, and the environment certainly affects their subsequent evolution, but as far as I know (with limited exceptions for humans), creatures do not control their environment in order to direct their later evolution.I was thinking more along the lines of how creatures interject themselves into the evolutionary process and control outcomes such as environments, nesting, ecosystems, behaviours, cooperative behaviours.
Yes, I'm quite familiar with the claims of the EES crowd, some of which are obviously correct, but few of which, as far as I can tell, actually change the fundamental role of natural selection in adaptive evolution. Take a look at the second response here; it reflects my views pretty well.There are a raft of influences such as Inclusive inheritance (epigenetic, behavioural, ecological and cultural forms of inheritance [3,9]),
Developmental bias (phenotype evolution is biased towards certain outcomes over others and dictated by developmental processes rather than random processes), niche construction (the process whereby organisms, through their metabolism, their activities, and their choices, modify their own and/or each other’s niche’) thus acting as selections of niches which direct evolution towards self selected behaviours and plasticity (the ability of an individual to modify its development in response to environmental conditions).
I know, I read an awesome paper - Professor Stroud said the followingI mean, other than the fact that we can trivially observe natural selection acting as a mechanism for evolution in the lab and in the wild, no, no reason.
The article is hilarious. It reads like it was written by a high school student mocking something he doesn't understand. There's a reason scientists pay no attention to creationists.
Aside from the fact that your rephrasing is exactly wrong, um, okay. Why don't you summarize the evidence that the paper (the actual paper, not the thing you quoted from) presents?I know, I read an awesome paper - Professor Stroud said the following
Stroud said. “Now we know that even if animals appear to be staying the same, evolution is still happening.”
I spilled my coffee 'cos I was laughing. - Let's rephrase "even though we have no evidence, evolution is still happening". Creationists may have a point after all
So what about all the examples of how creatures build dams, nests, mothering environments, webs, change soil makeup other niche constructions which create an environment that suits the creature/organism thus controlling their evolutionary trajectory by ensuring beneficial environments conducive to their offsprings needs. In other words rather the creatures are doing the selecting.Creatures certainly control many things about their environment, and the environment certainly affects their subsequent evolution, but as far as I know (with limited exceptions for humans), creatures do not control their environment in order to direct their later evolution.
The SET and EES both see these additional influences and processes. The difference is the SET sees them as (add on's) and not causually prominent whereas the EES sees them as being causually prominent on the same par as NS and random genetic changes to contribute to phenotype traits and evolvability.Yes, I'm quite familiar with the claims of the EES crowd, some of which are obviously correct, but few of which, as far as I can tell, actually change the fundamental role of natural selection in adaptive evolution. Take a look at the second response here; it reflects my views pretty well.
You're mixing up two things here. Lots of creatures modify their environments to suit their needs (presumably as a result of previous natural selection). That's always been perfectly consistent with standard evolutionary theory. That is not the same as controlling their evolutionary trajectory in a way that will ultimately beneficial. Any change to their evolution is strictly a by-product, not a target of their behavior. Changing the environment may in fact be harmful to the species in the long run, but either way, future evolution is not the goal and choice is not involved.So what about all the examples of how creatures build dams, nests, mothering environments, webs, change soil makeup other niche constructions which create an environment that suits the creature/organism thus controlling their evolutionary trajectory by ensuring beneficial environments conducive to their offsprings needs. In other words rather the creatures are doing the selecting.
Having done professional scientific research in both QM and evolution, I have to say that this is a terrible analogy, and only incidentally because consciousness plays no role in QM physics.Its not too disimilar to other fields like in physics and how QM has expanded and even changed the paradygm and ontology of physics especially considering the role of the observer and consciousness in the equation which the classical explanations find hard to explain and account for.