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

In message <Fawri.2549$AC7.1519@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

"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, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>IMHO is that self-organization is *way* more important >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>than evolution in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>producing the phenomenon of life, as can be seen by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>organisms.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What are you talking about? The DNA *is* a recipe for an >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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?

Perhaps he means that brains are the substrate for culture, analogously to DNA being the substrate for development. (Not that either statement would be exactly accurate. And the analogy is imperfect.)
--
alias Ernest Major

.

Relevant Pages

  • Article: Does Environment Influence Genes? Researcher Gives Hard Thoughts On Soft Inheritance
    ... Organisms, including humans, all inherit DNA from generation to generation, ... what biologists call hard inheritance, ... proposes that epigenetics should be considered a form of soft inheritance, ... The next level of gene regulation studied in epigenetics is DNA packaging. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • 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)
  • Re: Whats more important, self-organzation or evolution?
    ... Discussions of evolution have been ... Its DNA governs how protein and RNA molecules are built, ... proteins, RNAs, various signalling molecules (some of which are proteins ... "Tarbutniks are small rodentlike animals, which got their name from the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • DNA in nonliving systems
    ... Is my tooth brush made out of DNA? ... of the design of either a living or nonliving system. ... non-compartmentalized models of evolution. ... search algorithm dubbed Directed Exhaustive Search. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Unfalsifiable Tautology = Evolution
    ... Radiation and mutagenic chemicals may cause mutations. ... Nobody can turn a bacterial genome into a blue whale genome. ... What do you think researchers are doing when they splice strands of DNA ... Might there be some "junk" DNA that actual prevents such evolution? ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading