Directed Evolution

[J_B_]

I can see how directed evolution is a useful lab technique.

What I've been unable to discern is whether biologists see it as a synthetic technique only for laboratory purposes, or whether they think it accurately models evolution outside the lab.

Anyone know?

 

[Occams Barber]

I can see how directed evolution is a useful lab technique.

What I've been unable to discern is whether biologists see it as a synthetic technique only for laboratory purposes, or whether they think it accurately models evolution outside the lab.

Anyone know?

I don't understand why your having trouble with this.

Directed evolution involves an intelligent agent manipulating the evolution process to achieve a pre-determined outcome.

'Natural' evolution leaves nature to take it's course. In the natural world of science, intelligent, purposeful agency is not assumed.

OB

 

[Bradskii]

I can see how directed evolution is a useful lab technique.

What I've been unable to discern is whether biologists see it as a synthetic technique only for laboratory purposes, or whether they think it accurately models evolution outside the lab.

Anyone know?

Just replace natural selection with artificial selection.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I can see how directed evolution is a useful lab technique.

What I've been unable to discern is whether biologists see it as a synthetic technique only for laboratory purposes, or whether they think it accurately models evolution outside the lab.

Anyone know?

It depends on the scientist. Personally I think it's a cop out. Either God created or He did not. How do I know? He says so.

 

[Bradskii]

Either God created or He did not.

And if He did, we know how.

 

[tas8831]

It depends on the scientist. Personally I think it's a cop out. Either God created or He did not. How do I know? He says so.

What is your science background again?

 

[J_B_]

Just replace natural selection with artificial selection.

You're leaving me to infer a lot. My inferences would be:
* directed evolution is seen as a legitimate type of selection pressure
* directed evolution is selection pressure, not a model of selection pressure
* directed evolution does not model other selection pressures

I'm eliminating use of the terms "natural" and "artificial" because it seems those embody an anthropomorphic bias that we humans are not part of nature, and therefore not subject to nor a cause of natural selection. Though I guess if you want to explicitly define natural selection as any selective pressure that doesn't involve humans, you could.

 

[Aussie Pete]

What is your science background again?

Irrelevant. I know what God has to say on the subject.

 

[eleos1954]

It depends on the scientist. Personally I think it's a cop out. Either God created or He did not. How do I know? He says so.

He does indeed say so .... but that's not all to it .... we have learned how extremely complex life is .... to me it is the more complexity the more it points to design rather than random occurrences. Some believe otherwise .... ok ...

Science says the answers are in nature ..... God says the same thing.

Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.

Romans 1:19

19For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.…

It is a matter of interpretation of what is seen and there is disagreement of the interpretation of what is seen.

and the beat goes on ;o)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Obviously, Darwin spent time considering pigeon fanciers (and fancying them himself).

He begins, “I have been led to study domestic pigeons with particular care because the evidence that all the domestic races are descended from one known source is far clearer than with any other anciently domesticated animal. Secondly, because many treatises in several languages, some of them old, have been written on the pigeon, so that we are enabled to trace the history of several breeds. And lastly, because, the amount of variation has been extraordinarily great. . . . I have kept alive all the most distinct breeds, which I could procure in England or from the Continent; and have prepared skeletons of all. I received skins from Persia, and a large number from India and other quarters of the world. Since my admission to two of the London pigeon-clubs I have received the kindest assistance from some of the most eminent amateurs. . . . I do not hesitate to affirm that some domestic races of the rock-pigeon differ fully as much from each other in external characters as do the most distinct natural genera.”

So yes, it's a 'synthetic' technique, or artificial selection. Rather than natural selection that happens in nature. In order to conclude that natural selection was actually directed, I imagine you would have to discover some 'telos' that it was working towards that was not aligned with the natural end of propagation.

 

[J_B_]

So yes, it's a 'synthetic' technique, or artificial selection. Rather than natural selection that happens in nature.

Thanks, but maybe take a peek at post #7.

In order to conclude that natural selection was actually directed, I imagine you would have to discover some 'telos' that it was working towards that was not aligned with the natural end of propagation.

Yes, but we've been over that. Ain't gonna happen. By that I mean even if it were true, we don't have the model to detect it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, but we've been over that. Ain't gonna happen. By that I mean even if it were true, we don't have the model to detect it.

You could, in principle, infer directed selection if the result was a population unable to survive in nature (i.e. without intervention).

 

[J_B_]

You could, in principle, infer directed selection if the result was a population unable to survive in nature (i.e. without intervention).

As noted in post #7, you're going to have define nature. Are we or are we not part of nature? Is there any known being that is not part of nature?

But I get what you're saying. You think it would be reasonable, when a population deviates from typical non-interventionist evolutionary behavior, to infer directed evolution. Maybe. I would struggle to articulate what that typical evolution is, but maybe.

 

[Bradskii]

You're leaving me to infer a lot. My inferences would be:
* directed evolution is seen as a legitimate type of selection pressure
* directed evolution is selection pressure, not a model of selection pressure
* directed evolution does not model other selection pressures

I'm eliminating use of the terms "natural" and "artificial" because it seems those embody an anthropomorphic bias that we humans are not part of nature, and therefore not subject to nor a cause of natural selection. Though I guess if you want to explicitly define natural selection as any selective pressure that doesn't involve humans, you could.

Natural means with no conscious goal. Artificial means there is a goal. Is there an underlying point you want to make? Is this heading somewhere? I'd prefer you to get there immediately if there is.

 

[J_B_]

Natural means with no conscious goal. Artificial means there is a goal. Is there an underlying point you want to make? Is this heading somewhere? I'd prefer you to get there immediately if there is.

The purpose was to answer the question in the OP. It has been answered, so the purpose is fulfilled.

Often interesting things arise in answering the original OP, so I often pursue those secondary issues. But those secondary issues rarely have a predefined purpose. It's just a conversation.

The term "nature" or "natural" comes up a lot, but has no firm definition AFAIK. How widely would you say your definitions are used?

I offered something that doesn't use terms like "natural" or "artificial". The result being that directed evolution is just a selection pressure of sentient beings with a goal. As such, it seems reasonable to describe it, but to place it in a category apart from all other selection pressures seems, as I said, an unnecessary anthropomorphic bias. As I think about it, there's a lot of directed evolution going on outside labs as well.

 

[Bradskii]

The purpose was to answer the question in the OP. It has been answered, so the purpose is fulfilled.

Often interesting things arise in answering the original OP, so I often pursue those secondary issues. But those secondary issues rarely have a predefined purpose. It's just a conversation.

The term "nature" or "natural" comes up a lot, but has no firm definition AFAIK. How widely would you say your definitions are used?

I offered something that doesn't use terms like "natural" or "artificial". The result being that directed evolution is just a selection pressure of sentient beings with a goal. As such, it seems reasonable to describe it, but to place it in a category apart from all other selection pressures seems, as I said, an unnecessary anthropomorphic bias. As I think about it, there's a lot of directed evolution going on outside labs as well.

As I said, natural equals no goal. Artificial (directed) equals goal. Whether in a lab or not.

 

[J_B_]

As I said, natural equals no goal. Artificial (directed) equals goal. Whether in a lab or not.

Lions have no goal when they hunt the slowest in the herd?

I'm not sure of the reason for your terse replies that don't answer the questions I asked. If you bear a continuing suspicion that I'm trying to set up some creationist triumph, I'm not going to continually defend myself. Either you're interested in having a conversation with me or you're not.

 

[Bradskii]

Lions have no goal when they hunt the slowest in the herd?

From an evolutionary perspective? None.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As noted in post #7, you're going to have define nature. Are we or are we not part of nature? Is there any known being that is not part of nature?

By convention, the difference between natural and artificial is human intervention. I am happy to agree that we are, strictly speaking, part of nature, but I think it's a useful distinction in appropriate contexts.

But I get what you're saying. You think it would be reasonable, when a population deviates from typical non-interventionist evolutionary behavior, to infer directed evolution. Maybe. I would struggle to articulate what that typical evolution is, but maybe.

That's not what I said. To clarify, if a population was unable to survive without human provision of resources not available in nature (I don't mean resources no longer available in nature), then it would seem reasonable to infer that the population had been modified by human intervention.

I don't think it would be easy to say that even relatively exotic products of selective breeding could not have been produced naturally without such a caveat.

 

[J_B_]

By convention, the difference between natural and artificial is human intervention. I am happy to agree that we are, strictly speaking, part of nature, but I think it's a useful distinction in appropriate contexts.

Sure.

That's not what I said. To clarify, if a population was unable to survive without human provision of resources not available in nature (I don't mean resources no longer available in nature), then it would seem reasonable to infer that the population had been modified by human intervention.

I don't think it would be easy to say that even relatively exotic products of selective breeding could not have been produced naturally without such a caveat.

OK.