Is evolution blind?

[AlexGTV]

Consider this:
Animals have furs with colours and patterns that blend in with their environment. Could it be that there is a feedback mechanism in the brain that mimics the surroundings? Or for animals that do not possess brains, similar mechanisms on their sensors?

In other words is DNA dynamic and through generations it can mutate at "will" after pressures from the environment? Buffalos have horns strategically placed to stab lions from behind that aim for their throats. Humans have agile opposable thumbs evolved from the need to swing to the need to grab and manipulate.

Evolution may very well have began as blind with natural selection being totally random at the first stages, but as most spieces have eyes, it too could have resulted in dynamic organisms that actually change (instead of randomly mutate) due to pressures from the environment.

Discuss.

 

[Alex p.]

Many quantum physicists believe the DNA is totally dynamic, that it is influenced every second by every thought or feeling we have, pretty exciting stuff.

 

[Omnis]

You're not really understanding the theory of evolution and natural selection here.

There is no want or need to the evolutionary process. You're making the mistake of assigning these humanistic concepts to the process.

Furs that have environment-matching patterns, etc. have been selected for not because they mimicked the environment, but because it just so happened that they had the best characteristics for survival. In other words, all the other varieties died off somewhere along the line.

Also, DNA is not dynamic. All of the base pairs are aromatic chains and are therefore extremely stable. It takes a ton of energy to react those molecules that are stabilized by aromaticity.

 

[Exorcet]

You don't need DNA to be influnced by the mind (also note that some organisms don't have minds)

Epic video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0


*EDIT

Also, being blind =/= being random. Evolution was never random. Genetic changes are random, but natural selection influences which of these changes survive through the generations. Basically, imagine that all life started out being white. At one point, some of the life forms turned green randomly. This let them blend in with trees. The result is that the predators could see the white ones more easily, and they went extinct.

EDIT II

I hope I don't start a evolution v creationist argument here, because there's a thread for that. The point of the video was to show that random changes can lead to a specific outcome. And the video rocks.

 

[AlexGTV]

Many quantum physicists believe the DNA is totally dynamic, that it is influenced every second by every thought or feeling we have, pretty exciting stuff.

Yes. I've also read that it can act as an antenna to microwaves. This could expain telepathy. There is also the great mystery of the bulk of DNA never decoded to RNA. Maybe parasitic DNA. Maybe something of great importance.

You're not really understanding the theory of evolution and natural selection here.

There is no want or need to the evolutionary process. You're making the mistake of assigning these humanistic concepts to the process.

Furs that have environment-matching patterns, etc. have been selected for not because they mimicked the environment, but because it just so happened that they had the best characteristics for survival. In other words, all the other varieties died off somewhere along the line.

Also, DNA is not dynamic. All of the base pairs are aromatic chains and are therefore extremely stable. It takes a ton of energy to react those molecules that are stabilized by aromaticity.

I understand the principles of evolution. I just try to get a step further with speculation. The pressure of survival though is so great that mechanisms may have arised that mimic, predict and outsmart opponents of survival. The first mechanism was totally random, the rest is history.
And you are right about how stable the DNA is. Maybe other things can change like the expression of it or unknown variables in the scheme of things.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

I've talk with those who have been blind from birth and no matter how much I try to describe something as simple as the color red they had no understand what "red" is? Is it possible before television were invented it could have been invented by a blind man from birth which has no understanding of light or colors? This is the same faith that would be required to believe somehow a blind and dead universe create eyes to see. Of course if you use your "imagination" anything is possible.

 

[Keef]

You don't need DNA to be influnced by the mind (also note that some organisms don't have minds)

What is a "mind"?

 

[Exorcet]

I've talk with those who have been blind from birth and no matter how much I try to describe something as simple as the color red they had no understand what "red" is? Is it possible before television were invented it could have been invented by a blind man from birth which has no understanding of light or colors? This is the same faith that would be required to believe somehow a blind and dead universe create eyes to see. Of course if you use your "imagination" anything is possible.

We're all blind in the Gamma Ray spectrum, but we can "see" Gamma Rays just fine.

What is a "mind"?

I probably should have said brain.

 

[AlexGTV]

We're all blind in the Gamma Ray spectrum, but we can "see" Gamma Rays just fine.

In which way? Through transposing them to the visible spectrum?

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

We're all blind in the Gamma Ray spectrum, but we can "see" Gamma Rays just fine.

Since we are not blind to light we was able to look for other sources of light we "can't" see. This is not the same with someone who never seen any light what so ever.

I probably should have said brain.

What is "I" then?

 

[Exorcet]

In which way? Through transposing them to the visible spectrum?

That's one way.

We can also do this (note, the following is radio, not gamma)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwnpXll_A_E

While it's unlikely that a civilization of blind people would ever build a TV, since it would be useless to them, I don't see how it would be impossible for them to build one. All you need to do is convert all the concepts in the TV into mathematics. A solid surface that emits lights at different wavelengths in specific locations.



Eye sight is not the only way to sense light. We can sense it through our skin (heat), given 1,000's of years, a member of the blind society could identify this heat as radiation. Likewise, neutrinos are so intangible to us, that they literally pass through our bodies. We found them anyway.

What is "I" then?

"I" thinks this is unrelated to mind vs brain lol. But I don't know the answer to that question, it seems that I am something that can experience things through senses, and those senses say I'm a human. And I believe that humans have brains. Is the brain the mind? I'm not sure. I'm not sure if what I just said even makes sense.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

In other words is DNA dynamic and through generations it can mutate at "will" after pressures from the environment? Buffalos have horns strategically placed to stab lions from behind that aim for their throats. Humans have agile opposable thumbs evolved from the need to swing to the need to grab and manipulate.

Evolution may very well have began as blind with natural selection being totally random at the first stages, but as most spieces have eyes, it too could have resulted in dynamic organisms that actually change (instead of randomly mutate) due to pressures from the environment.

Discuss.

What you're talking about are memes which aren't stored at a genetic level. Take for instance hair styles in humans. Having a fashionable hair style demonstrates two thing, access to information and access to resources. The information is that you are ahead of the curve socially in what's current showing you are socially connected and aware, very attractive traits. The access to resources is quite complicated, firstly you have the readily available resources to have your hair styled and maintained which is an indicator of wealth, secondly your physiology is strong enough that your hair is strong and healthy which demonstrates both good genes and a good diet.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

It's impossible to proven something impossible since what is possible is determine by what we know.
Also there is a huge difference in feeling light on the skin which a blind person understands and "seeing" light

 

[AlexGTV]

Is the brain the mind? I'm not sure.

I'd say if you don't believe in soul then they are the same. The brain is so fast, capable and complex that we may be deceived to believe there is a mind somewhere in there. I would not be surprised if they proved at some point the brain is all there is. Tangible and physical with no questioning. That of course would ask for us to be smarter than the brain.

 

[Exorcet]

there is a huge difference in feeling light on the skin which a blind person understanding and "seeing" light

I agree completely, but I think feeling radiation is enough to set someone on the path to build a TV.

I'd say if you don't believe in soul then they are the same. The brain is so fast, capable and complex that we may be deceived to believe there is a mind somewhere in there. I would not be surprised if they proved at some point the brain is all there is. Tangible and physical with no questioning. That of course would ask for us to be smarter than the brain.

Yeah, if I were to sway one way, I'd say that the brain is everything, since I know that the brain is there. However, consciousness and experience are hard to explain. Computers have brains more or less, but they don't seem to be aware, so why am I? I can imagine a person with a brain that is not aware, it makes perfect sense. However, I cannot explain self awareness.

 

[Alex p.]

Yes. I've also read that it can act as an antenna to microwaves. This could expain telepathy. There is also the great mystery of the bulk of DNA never decoded to RNA. Maybe parasitic DNA. Maybe something of great importance.

There have been numerous theories about that. Many "alien-contactees" claimed, they have been told that some of it, is "alien" DNA, placed there by "aliens". They placed it there as a gift so to say, in the case we would have the knowledge and technology to activate it, and would actually have the desire, if we find it usefull to us.

Other parts of it is our DNA, but can only be activated by a "highly spiritualized" being or human. That concerns all the vibration theory, the "better" you are as a person, the higher your frequency gets and at some point you reach the "next level" of consciousness or awereness and at that point or process the "other" DNA gets activated by the mind or your consciousness itself, enabling you to do, for example, telepathy type communication.
I find it to be a fascinating thought, but have in no way the knowledge or understanding of bio-physics, DNA stuff LOL to really comment on it.

 

[niky]

Evolution only sees binaries. Ones and zeroes. Ones live, zeroes die.

You can be blind and still make fire. You just need to hit random things together until you make a spark. Then you hit them together over random things until one of those things catches fire. It may take forever, but evolution has nothing but time.

But each step in the process must be a "1". Birds don't develop wings over a million years and sit there flapping around on the ground because they haven't developed the muscles to fly with them, hence becoming tasty snacks for predators.

No, each step in the chain has to be a successful "1", otherwise the chain ends.

To this event, even mutations that are detrimental to survival occur. As long as they aren't detrimental enough to kill off the species. That's why humans get scurvy. A mutation some millions of years ago that impaired our ability to make our own Vitamin C. Not serious enough to kill us, since we get it from our omnivorous diet.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

To this event, even mutations that are detrimental to survival occur. As long as they aren't detrimental enough to kill off the species. That's why humans get scurvy. A mutation some millions of years ago that impaired our ability to make our own Vitamin C. Not serious enough to kill us, since we get it from our omnivorous diet.

One would have to argue that no detrimental evolutionary steps occur. Our bodies no longer making Vitamin C would surely have a metabolic advantage in the energy saved producing something we can procure from diet. The detrimental effect on sailors getting scurvy was remedied by the meme evolutionary step of taking lemon/lime juice to combat it.

 

[wfooshee]

The original question presents a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamic of evolution, and a reversal of cause and effect, if you will.

Consider a species of tan-colored mouse whose sandy habitat was overrun by lava flows. Enough mice survive the volcano to keep the species prevalent in the area, but their tan fur stands out against the ground, making them easy pickings for predators.

Throughout their history, these mice have occasionally produced non-tan offspring: black, white, gray, dark brown, whatever. These oddly-colored mice probably don't survive exposure on the surface, as they don't blend in to the tan surroundings. They keep getting born, though, even if as very small percentage.

Now suddenly, those black mice are surviving, and the tan ones aren't. As more black mice survive, the gene for black fur becomes more prevalent, and black-mouse births become more common, and tan-mouse births less so.

How many generations does it take? Who knows? Depends on the original rate of black fur being produced. If it's really really low, it will take a long time. If it's truly low, the mouse will disappear from the region. (If that happens in enough regions, of course, the mouse becomes exctinct.) If it's 2 or 3 black-fur babies out of every ten, then it won't be long at all.

Nevertheless, the mice made no conscious or unconscious decisions to change their appearance. None of them went up to the lava and thought, "Boy, it would be great if my fur was black!"

The black fur, previously an undesirable trait and not good for survival, suddenly became not only desirable, but necessary, and came to the front of the gene pool, by selection. The gene pool has reacted to the environment, but was not proactive in doing so.

Another change that might be selected for among offspring is a difference in feet and claw structure. Those wide padded feet that keep them from sinking into the sand aren't really that good for a hard surface like lava. Digging that hardened surface can't be done with those measly toenails the tan mouse has in place of really useful claws. Again, nothing the mice "decided" needing done, but differences among offspring that change who survives and who doesn't, based on the new environment.

Now that region will be populated by the same species of mouse as before, but black rather than tan, probably different feet, too. At some point the difference may warrant the identification of the black mouse as a new species.

 

[Joel]

This sounds more like Lamarck's theory than Darwin's, he thought giraffes actively stretched their necks for example.

 

[Omnis]

This sounds more like Lamarck's theory than Darwin's, he thought giraffes actively stretched their necks for example.

It's cute, but it's wrong.

 

[niky]

One would have to argue that no detrimental evolutionary steps occur. Our bodies no longer making Vitamin C would surely have a metabolic advantage in the energy saved producing something we can procure from diet. The detrimental effect on sailors getting scurvy was remedied by the meme evolutionary step of taking lemon/lime juice to combat it.

A mutation to the worse is only detrimental if it kills the creature before they procreate.

There are metabolic advantages to not producing more teeth than you need (reptile vs. mammal), but not really much in not producing Vitamin C... but not producing Vitamin C is not a problem for omnivores or herbivores, which is why the mutation was carried on through the primate family (not just humans) unchecked.

 

[Joel]

It's, but it's not true. cute, but it's wrong.

Oh absolutely. It's nicer to think "all the giraffes grew their necks and lived happily ever after", than "all the giraffes died except for some with longer necks". But it's not true.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The principles of evolution as we understand them nowadays have nothing to do with an organism's "desire" to be a certain way.

Those best adapted to any given environment will survive to breed by defeating/avoiding/dissuading predators and by finding sufficient quantities of food.

The gene pool for that environment will gradually contain more genes from the most suitable organisms and less from the unsuitable organisms. Soon the traits of the unsuitable organisms will vanish completely.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Evolution only sees binaries. Ones and zeroes. Ones live, zeroes die.

You can be blind and still make fire. You just need to hit random things together until you make a spark. Then you hit them together over random things until one of those things catches fire. It may take forever, but evolution has nothing but time.

But each step in the process must be a "1". Birds don't develop wings over a million years and sit there flapping around on the ground because they haven't developed the muscles to fly with them, hence becoming tasty snacks for predators.

No, each step in the chain has to be a successful "1", otherwise the chain ends.

To this event, even mutations that are detrimental to survival occur. As long as they aren't detrimental enough to kill off the species. That's why humans get scurvy. A mutation some millions of years ago that impaired our ability to make our own Vitamin C. Not serious enough to kill us, since we get it from our omnivorous diet.

This works both ways as lab studies have shown, If a beneficial mutation doesn't determine between life and death then the chances of this beneficial mutation becoming fix is close to 0. This is especially true with sexual creatures. In other words evolution has a serious sex problem which makes it extremely unlikely any of these "small steps" the theory badly needs will ever become fix. For ToE needs a large population to "find" the next "baby step" (soft selection) but need to kill off the population quickly afterward for it has any chance of becoming fixed. Even then the successful offspring has to avoid getting more non-beneficial mutation than beneficial ones.
For example your offspring may gain a beneficial mutation to lessen their chance of having a heart attack yet at the same time get a non-beneficial one which increase their chance of getting cancer.
So far there is no hard evidence to prove time is on evolution side, it's only an assumption since only time will tell.

 

[wfooshee]

This is especially true with sexual creatures.

How many asexual multi-cellular organisms are you aware of??!!! Sex is a hindrance to evolution?? All these animals and trees and stuff around my house didn't evolve, but the mushrooms in my lawn did?

I'm kinda sleepy, maybe I misread something or completely misunderstood your post. It sounded like you said that the most successful mechanism ever conceived (pun intended) for stirring genes actually hinders evolution.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

A mutation to the worse is only detrimental if it kills the creature before they procreate.

There are metabolic advantages to not producing more teeth than you need (reptile vs. mammal), but not really much in not producing Vitamin C... but not producing Vitamin C is not a problem for omnivores or herbivores, which is why the mutation was carried on through the primate family (not just humans) unchecked.

Logic suggests though that a mutation couldn't spread entirely through out a species unless it was advantageous though. Some where in our evolutionary past the mutation for not producing vitamin C occurred as a single instance. The mutation it self would either have to be significantly advantageous or have occurred in conjunction with another mutation which was advantageous other wise you would only find it in a cross section of the species not it's entirety.

 

[Omnis]

Mutations don't spread due to them being advantageous. Spread is determined by chance-- nothing more.

The only thing that is for sure is that disadvantageous mutations decrease darwinian fitness and therefore lead to eradication of the carrier in a certain environment or complete extinction of said mutant.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

Mutations don't spread due to them being advantageous. Spread is determined by chance-- nothing more.

The only thing that is for sure is that disadvantageous mutations decrease darwinian fitness and therefore lead to eradication of the carrier in a certain environment or complete extinction of said mutant.

How can an advantageous mutation not spread as a result of it's advantage? By it's very definition it increases the odds of survival, reproduction and thus the survival of the offspring. Even a fractional advantage spread over several generations of reproduction will result in a population more highly composed of those with the advantageous mutation and given enough generations the none mutated will become marginalised or even extinct. This is the entire basis of evolution.

 

[Omnis]

The basis of evolution is selection. Proliferation of a certain expression is dependent on the other expression(s) dying out. You're thinking of it backwards. Survival and reproduction has no effect on a population distribution since the other expressions would be reproducing just the same. It's the removal (extinction) of the other expressions that changes the population. That was the whole point of my and wfooshee's original responses.