Evolution?

[juvenissun]

I think staff here prefer curiosity and critical thinking to humility

Except each one of us is a potential teacher here.

Yeah. In fact, I would rather treat you like one.
And I fully understand the situation when a teach could not answer question raised by students. I would rather to see the teacher say: I will get back to you next time, than: go back to read your book.

 

[Naraoia]

So the question has changed from "why did bacteria not evolve" to "why did they not evolve multicellularity to the same extent that eukaryotes have?"

My guess here is that eukaryotes have developed a number of cell organelles that aid in the storage and production of energy, making them less dependent on diffusion as prokaryotes. This means that further specializations for the storage and transportation of energy have become a possibility, which is needed for larger multicellular organisms.

And management of DNA. Just how many correctly regulated signalling molecules and transcription factors and microRNAs and heaven knows what else are needed to coordinate an animal's development (My impression is way too many, and I know way too few of them )? And development is just one thing that's much more complicated in a multicellular creature than a unicellular one.

 

[juvenissun]

No, a goal means something someone wants to reach (in my dictionary, anyway). Something that you determine in advance and then go for it. Evolution does that not.

The gravity force has a goal that fits your description.

Evolution does too: change to survive, live a better life (more food, more space, less competition, fewer enemies), etc. Would you say these are not goals? In fact, I think that after these conditions are satisfied, evolution would stop. Because anyway of change after that would lead to a worse situation.

Evolution is definitely not a random process.

 

[juvenissun]

And management of DNA. Just how many correctly regulated signalling molecules and transcription factors and microRNAs and heaven knows what else are needed to coordinate an animal's development (My impression is way too many, and I know way too few of them )? And development is just one thing that's much more complicated in a multicellular creature than a unicellular one.

And am I right to say that the multicellular lives were getting more complicated (on __???__, fill this blank with something correct ) through time?

There MUST be something guided or directed the (overall) development !

 

[Bombila]

Before I started, I know evolutionists could not answer the question. And I was right.

I did learn, even the question is not answered. You guys are trying to beat me. But you did not get what you like to see and I am still arguing. However, I do have a lot of fun in talking about things I don't understand much and see people who claimed that they know, but feel awkward as a result of the debate.

The question is answered. You refuse to either understand or accept the answer.

How is trying to explain something to you 'trying to beat you'? What do you think we 'like to see'? Most of us like to see interested people learn things; it's unfortunate you seem to keep missing the facts and refusing to employ common sense about everyday things, but maybe something will come back to you someday.

 

[Tomk80]

No. the goal did not change AT ALL. What you said is an explanation of the OP.

Yes it does. Because both eukaryotes and prokaryotes have developed multicellularity, as has already been shown. Only eukaryotes can develop into larger organisms than prokaryotes can.

According to what you said, it does not like a "random" change.

It does not like a random change? What is that suppose to mean?

 

[Naraoia]

Before I started, I know evolutionists could not answer the question. And I was right.

I did learn, even the question is not answered. You guys are trying to beat me. But you did not get what you like to see and I am still arguing. However, I do have a lot of fun in talking about things I don't understand much and see people who claimed that they know, but feel awkward as a result of the debate.

Who exactly do you think feels awkward in this debate?

 

[Tomk80]

Ha ha ha, I wish I could do that.

A teacher of mine did.

 

[Naraoia]

Sure I can. The point is, after you presented something I don't understand and I just let it go, you are not picking it up and emphasize it again. If you do that and stress its significance, I will certainly go back and read it a few more times. When I do that, I usually can see your point.

Hmm, an interesting attitude to be sure. We devote our precious time and energy to answer questions you, by your own admission, only ask because you want to "have fun". And you expect us to hammer home every single point that whooshes past your head and you don't care enough to ask about. Is that about right?

</steam>

 

[Naraoia]

Yeah. In fact, I would rather treat you like one.

If that's a compliment, thanks.

And I fully understand the situation when a teach could not answer question raised by students. I would rather to see the teacher say: I will get back to you next time, than: go back to read your book.

That's nice... are you trying to make any point with it?

 

[Tomk80]

Very good. Thank you. While I could not comment on what you said due to ignorance, I would argue on the process of evolution:

According to your reasons, eukaryotes eventually evolved not because the survivorship, not because of the niche difference, but because of its potential of evolving. In comparison, prokaryotes do not have the same potential.

No, that's not what he said. When eukaryotes evolved, they had a benefit in a certain niche at that time which allowed them to survive. The potential of evolving further didn't play a role when the first eukaryotes came into existence.

Use a simple language to say the same thing, eukaryotes evolve because they can. Prokaryotes do not do the same because they can not.

But that does not mean that eukaryotes evolved with the goal of enabling large multicellular organisms.

I guess you would say I got it this time.

Sorry, no.

 

[Tomk80]

The gravity force has a goal that fits your description.

No it doesn't.

Evolution does too: change to survive, live a better life (more food, more space, less competition, fewer enemies), etc.

Individual animals have different mutations that make them better or worse at survival. But these mutations never have the goal of survival or living a better life, they just happen randomly. The individuals that have mutations that help it survive will thrive, but that was never the goal of the change. The mutations happen randomly.

Would you say these are not goals?

So, no.

In fact, I think that after these conditions are satisfied, evolution would stop. Because anyway of change after that would lead to a worse situation.

Only if evolution would lead to a definitive optimum and the environment stays constant. We know from simulations that evolution generally only reaches suboptimal solutions. We know from observation that the environment does not stay constant.

Evolution is definitely not a random process.

Evolution is stochastic. Meaning that different options have a different chance of happening, but this is still a chance. A faster rabbit will have a better chance of outrunning a fox, but there is still a chance it'll get caught.

 

[Naraoia]

The gravity force has a goal that fits your description.

It may fit my description; it doesn't fit what I actually mean by the word "goal" Language is tricky.

Evolution does too: change to survive, live a better life (more food, more space, less competition, fewer enemies), etc. Would you say these are not goals?

Yes, I would. Organisms don't evolve because of what can be in the future, but rather because of what is in the present. I don't think I can put it better than that.

In fact, I think that after these conditions are satisfied, evolution would stop. Because anyway of change after that would lead to a worse situation.

In a theoretical, fully static world, perhaps every inhabitant of that world could reach an optimum of adaptation given its evolutionary constraints. Maybe, in theory, that would mean that every non-neutral mutation is selected out. However, genetic drift would still operate on neutral variation, and genetic drift is a mechanism of evolution. So you can only stop evolution if you fully eliminate mutations. Or make organisms immortal so that they don't have to reproduce.

Also, that is assuming that there exists an optimum. I'm not at all sure it does.

Evolution is definitely not a random process.

Strictly speaking, I disagree Natural selection only increases the probability that you will leave more descendants if you have the right genes. As far as I can tell, it only guarantees anything if the mutation you carry is 100% lethal.

(Of course it may at the deepest level be a fully deterministic process, but for all practical purposes it isn't)

Also note that the opposite of random isn't goal-oriented.

 

[Naraoia]

And am I right to say that the multicellular lives were getting more complicated (on __???__, fill this blank with something correct ) through time?

Some of them were getting more complicated.

I have no idea what should go in the blank. Average?

There MUST be something guided or directed the (overall) development !

I'm not sure I understand whose overall development you mean... individual creatures? Or multicellular life as a whole? (On both I could probably get you generalities and a few snippets of information, but I'm only beginning to learn about this stuff. Development is intriguing and sometimes very neat, but it also seems dauntingly complex to me)

 

[Tomk80]

Some of them were getting more complicated.

I have no idea what should go in the blank. Average?

I'm not sure I understand whose overall development you mean... individual creatures? Or multicellular life as a whole? (On both I could probably get you generalities and a few snippets of information, but I'm only beginning to learn about this stuff. Development is intriguing and sometimes very neat, but it also seems dauntingly complex to me)

Stephen J Gould had a nice argument on that. Basically his argument was that we see a trend towards increasingly complex animals, because the starting line is not complex. You can't get any less complex at the start, so the only way to go is up. Apparently in higher developed organisms he saw a trend both ways, to both increasing and decreasing complexity (but he probably researched shellfish, knowing Gould).

 

[Naraoia]

Stephen J Gould had a nice argument on that. Basically his argument was that we see a trend towards increasingly complex animals, because the starting line is not complex. You can't get any less complex at the start, so the only way to go is up.

I have to agree with him on that. I wonder if there's an upper limit to life's complexity...

Apparently in higher developed organisms he saw a trend both ways, to both increasing and decreasing complexity (but he probably researched shellfish, knowing Gould).

I wonder how he measured it. And what kind of shellfish, or other thing, he measured it in. And how many trends were going each way. Too many questions, as usual

Do you know where he wrote about this? (Oh nooooo, don't tell me, I don't need more reading )

 

[Tomk80]

I have to agree with him on that. I wonder if there's an upper limit to life's complexity...

I'll answer that as soon as you give a good definition of life and a good measure of complexity Multiple colonies of ants can grow together and form a sort of superorganism. If you define life in a way that can include this, I'd say there are no bounds to complexity anymore.

I wonder how he measured it. And what kind of shellfish, or other thing, he measured it in. And how many trends were going each way. Too many questions, as usual

Do you know where he wrote about this?

I though it was "bully for brontosaur". He delved a little bit into statistics for that one IIRC, which made it a must-read for me.

(Oh nooooo, don't tell me, I don't need more reading )

I know how you feel.

But first I have to finish the Dark Tower series.

 

[pgp_protector]

I'll answer that as soon as you give a good definition of life and a good measure of complexity Multiple colonies of ants can grow together and form a sort of superorganism. If you define life in a way that can include this, I'd say there are no bounds to complexity anymore.

...snip...

Hmm I wonder how that would compare to some of the Compounds that are started by some religions ?
You've got you Queen/King/Ruler, workers, breeders, ect...

 

[Vene]

I though it was "bully for brontosaur". He delved a little bit into statistics for that one IIRC, which made it a must-read for me.

That could be, I recently finished The Panda's Thumb and I know he mentioned it in there. I just don't remember which essay.

I must say, it was quite interesting to read about evolutionary biology from a perspective held 30 years ago. I imagine that a more recent book of that style would include a lot more genetics (even though Gould was a paleontologist he still did mention some research with RNA). Actually, that RNA bit was pretty cool because we have made a lot of gains in just 3 decades. I bet something like the Human Genome Project would have been unthinkable in the days before PCR.

 

[Split Rock]

Very good. Thank you. While I could not comment on what you said due to ignorance, I would argue on the process of evolution:

You are welcome. If you want to lnow more, I would suggest looking up "endosymbiosis."

According to your reasons, eukaryotes eventually evolved not because the survivorship, not because of the niche difference, but because of its potential of evolving. In comparison, prokaryotes do not have the same potential.

Not quite. Eukaryotes were able to evolve into large multicellular organisms because they were predisposed for this line of evolution, due to adaptations they used to succeed in certain ecological niches as single-celled organisms (such as alge and yeast).

Let me give you another example. Theropod dinosaurs evolved hollow bones for running and feathers for insulation. These adaptations later proved beneficial for the evolution of flight in some theropods, even though their original functions had nothing to do with flight.

Use a simple language to say the same thing, eukaryotes evolve because they can. Prokaryotes do not do the same because they can not.

I really have to correct your definition of "evolved." It would be better to say, "eukaryotes evolved into large multicellular organisms because they could. Prokaryotes do not and did not do the same because they cannot."

I guess you would say I got it this time.

I think you are pretty close, anyway.