Re: What's more important, self-organzation or evolution?


"dkomo" <dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:EumdnTJysaT-NjPbnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:

"dkomo" <dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:X_-dnTkwo5_jFDPbnZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

sheldongb@xxxxxxx wrote:


On Jul 30, 5:07 pm, dkomo <dkomo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


r norman wrote:


On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:57:42 -0600, dkomo <dkomo...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

sheldo...@xxxxxxx wrote:

On Jul 29, 5:42 pm, dkomo <dkomo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

dkomo wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:

<sheldo...@xxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1185661229.854287.98150@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jul 28, 1:40 am, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins) wrote:

dkomo <dkomo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

dkomo wrote:

This was one of the questions I wanted to get answered when I first
poked my head into this n.g. a number of years ago. I must say, I have
been major big time disappointed. Discussions of evolution have been
endless and endlessly repetitive. The received view in biology has been
recycled over and over again. Discussions of self-organization in
biology have been virtually nil.

Yet, I think there is a way to resolve this question, and the answer
IMHO is that self-organization is *way* more important than evolution in
producing the phenomenon of life, as can be seen by examining one
particular aspect of organisms. What do you think that is?

No idea. Why not stop being coy and tell us all what you mean?

An organism's structure and function is vastly *underdetermined* by its
genome. Its DNA governs how protein and RNA molecules are built, when
and how much. It doesn't direct where those molecules are to go inside
a cell and what they are to do. The cell's self-organizational
processes take care of that. In fact, the existence of DNA itself is a
result of those processes

Development of a multicellular organism from a single cell to complete
adult is an excellent example of self-organization. DNA has a
ralatively minor part to play in that. Another example is how brains
wire themselves up automatically. The trillions of synaptic connections
are not mapped at all in DNA.

All selection can do is pick the most effective self-organized forms,
but it does not have detailed control over the tremendous complexity of
that organization.

The problem arises from thinking of DNA as a recipe for an organism and
its phenotype. It ain't. It's part of the evolving causal process by
which chemicals self-organise themselves into organisms from prior
organisms.

What are you talking about? The DNA *is* a recipe for an organism and
it's phenotype, Darwinian wise. That it "evolves" does not detract

from being true for "an organism". Any consideration of "self-

organization" must consider heritability or waver from Darwinian
concepts; DNA is regarded as what is inherited and determines
phenotype. Sure, the way I brush my hair or develop as a result of
environmental variables will cause individual traits to occur in a
population, but these are not heritable, and therefore not relevant to
evolution. Dkomo provides "brain wiring" to be an example of "self-
organization", yet that is a profoundly trivial assumption not
relevant to "life", even were he right that DNA only plays a minor
part in brain wiring. And "relatively minor part" is an unproven
assumption at that. He suggests that selection chooses from these
"self-organized forms" but that DNA doesn't have "detailed" control
over phenotypic complexity. That's plain hogwash; you grow four limbs,
one pecker and a big schnose whether you were raised in AU or the US.
If you were born with less or more, Darwinism dictates the reason is
because of DNA, and nothing but DNA.

Bravo! And out of the mouth of Glenn Sheldon, yet.

And the most remarkable thing is that our resident philosopher, who takes
Rick Norman and I to task for suggesting that there is emergence in
biology, is here claiming that DNA is "part of the evolving causal process
by which chemicals self-organise themselves into organisms from prior
organisms." And why does he adopt this tortured way of speaking? Because
he sees this as the only alternative to saying "DNA is a recipe"!

I don't care much about emergence, but I wouldn't say that DNA is a
recipe. That may be a little better or a little worse than the computer
program analogy, but that's because both are more or less useless. DNA
isn't much like anything else I can think of. I like Wilkins'
formulation much better than "DNA is a recipe".

DNA is a part of a complex system of interactions that also include
proteins, RNAs, various signalling molecules (some of which are proteins
and some of which aren't), other physical signals, and the properties of
materials.

Huh? The information in DNA is composed of nucleotides. It is only
those that get transcribed. So the only molecules it can code for are
proteins and RNAs. It couldn't, for example, code for ATP or for
carbohydrates. So I'm not sure what you mean by "various signalling
molecules (some of which are proteins and some of which aren't), other
physical signals, and the properties of materials."

Several points:

DNA doesn't code for ATP or carbohyrdates, but it does code for all the
proteins that act to synthesize them.

By "various signalling molecules" I mean any molecule that participates
in determining which genes are switched on or off. Some of these are
proteins, like the various transcription factors. Others are not, and
perhaps the most famous of these is cyclic adenosine monophosphate
(cAMP), which you might like to look up.

"Cyclic AMP and Ca++ often behave as second messengers, intracellular
substances that relay messages from [cell] receptors to target proteins"

--Raven & Johnson, Biology, 5th ed., p. 135

By "other physical signals" I mean the various means other than
molecules that help to determine which genes get turned on or off. This
includes physical forces like tension and compression, which are
communicated to sensors on cell surfaces and interiors, and thence by
signalling molecules (again) to the nucleus.

By "properties of materials", I refer to the physical features of cells
and extracellular matrices that are important in epigenesis.

All these things you're describing here are what I'm calling
"self-organizing" processes. I draw a boundary between DNA and the rest
of the biomachinery in the cell. DNA is simply a template for building
proteins and RNAs. It doesn't *do* anything! Rather, everything is
done to it. DNA is completely passive. It is not some kind of master
control module for everything that goes on in the cell. Nothing you've
described here contradicts that viewpoint. All the cell signaling,
protein transport and metabolism is done by the biochemical networks
outside of DNA, without any *direct* control by DNA.

You're probably wrong about DNA, but it doesn't support your viewpoint
either way. A cell is a system, DNA being a necessary part of that
system. If you think it could be otherwise, then any support you could
provide for that may support your view. As it stands your argument is
dependent upon what "do" means.

My argument is that there are different points of view regarding what
"do" means. My pov has the "doing" distributed throughout the cell, and
when development takes place, the "doing" is distributed across all the
cells of the developing embryo.

The guardians of the received view here on the n.g. prefer a genecentric
pov, with the "doing" centered on DNA. You are agreeing with that,
hence getting a lot of "attaboy's" from them.

I believe I have repeatedly tried to insist that DNA is not the whole
story nor is it the only story but it certain is an enormously
important part of the story. I once described a highly artificial
system in which two different species (even from two different phyla
or kingdoms) could have identical DNA but still reproduce 'in kind'
just to prove that DNA is not the entire story. It was roundly
rejected at the time as completely non-biological -- such a thing
could not arise by mutation and natural selection in the real world.
Still, the existence of such an artificial example demonstrates that
DNA is not the total "blueprint" for an organism.

Not sure it's quite the same thing, but there's the case of tarbutnik
evolution, described in Jablonka and Lamb's chapter, "The Behavioral
Inheritance Systems":

"Tarbutniks are small rodentlike animals, which got their name from the
Hebrew word _tarbut_, which means "culture". One of the interesting
things about them is that they are all genetically identical. They have
perfect DNA maintenance systems, so their genes never change."

--Jablonka and Lamb, _Evolution in Four Evolutions_, p. 156

This is a thought experiment. Jablonka and Lamb describe how the
tarbutniks can evolve quite nicely even though they have neither genetic
nor epigenetic inheritance systems.

Actually, I thought of writing a post about this some time ago. I may
just go ahead with it because tarbutnik evolution is quite amusing.


Well in order to inherit anything, one must have some inheritance
system. Which do you propose is an alternate or supplement to DNA, and
how is it done?

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10470

"They trace four "dimensions" in evolution -- four inheritance systems
that play a role in evolution: genetic, epigenetic (or non-DNA
cellular transmission of traits), behavioral, and symbolic
(transmission through language and other forms of symbolic
communication)."


Correcting my typo in the cite, it should have been _Evolution in Four
Dimensions_.

How is it done? Neurons/neurology become(s) the hereditary mechanism
from one generation to the next. Works quite well. Ask any mammal.


I guess I don't follow this. How did I inherit my neurons/neurology from
my parents? How did my cats inherit theirs from their parents?


I was trying to get by with a sound bite. Neurons store information
just like genomes store information. What happens is the parent
tarbutniks pass their knowledge of the environment to the young
tarbutniks just like any mammal or bird does. Knowledge of such things
as what predators to avoid and how to avoid them, what food is good to
eat and how to find it, how to build a nest, how to survive through the
winter, etc. Neurons simply serve as the storage medium in this
transmission of knowledge and behavior.

There's nothing new in any of this. Any animal that supplies parental
care trains its young to survive if only by imitation -- i.e. acting as
a role model. What makes it interesting is that for tarbutniks such
information transfer is the only hereditary mechanism they have.
Jablonka and Lamb make the case that this mechanism is enough to allow
the tarbutniks to evolve in a way similar to genetic evolution.

Ok. Learning and cultural evolution. It is indeed similar in some ways
to genetic evolution.

Now the question is whether we next look for other things that are in some
ways similar to genetic evolutionment - and reach enlightenment (or at least
contentment) by that quest?

Or whether we examine the similarity between cultural and genetic evolution
more closely - delimiting the differences and trying to discern what capabilities
might belong to the one, but not to the other?

I suspose it is a matter of personal preference which course we take. As
should be obvious by now, I tend to prefer the second course. Which probably
means that if I achieve enlightenment, it will be a different kind of enlightenment
than the one you achieve.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ron Okimoto and the Gap Problem
    ... There seems to be an awful lot of wasteful, do-nothing, layabout DNA in most ... changes that affect aggregation and interaction of proteins ... evolution doesn't have to produce higher ... threshold requirements to come up with higher level systems? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • News: Scientists find a fingerprint of evolution across the human genome
    ... The Human Genome Project revealed that only a small fraction of the 3 ... billion "letter" DNA code actually instructs cells to manufacture proteins, ... important - important enough, that is, to persist during evolution. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Commentary: Making a case for intelligent design
    ... Evolution has never been proven. ... proteins are the essential building blocks of every existing cell on ... sequentially arranged correctly by DNA. ... the existence of the very thing you are trying to explain. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Commentary: Making a case for intelligent design
    ... Evolution has never been proven. ... proteins are the essential building blocks of every existing cell on ... sequentially arranged correctly by DNA. ... the existence of the very thing you are trying to explain. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: ID and the Difference Between Spheres and Cubes
    ... The "constant rate" of DNA change is an empirical fact. ... explosion) forms of evolution. ... basic chemistry and biology. ... question of whether the mutations which differentiated humans from apes ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading