Darwin and genetics win...AGAIN »
Posted by: Bkumm 9 months, 1 week agoThe story is not complete without a subscription, but there is enough here to show the relevance. "primitive eye, with no lens, no pupil and only primitive photoreceptors, was thought to be an example of an organ that had degraded." A recent DNA study shows that this eye has not degraded, but rather is a primitive version of our own eye
Read Full Story at newscientist.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 95
-
0%
Bkumm9 months, 1 week ago
And as the process continues we see more and more how genetics proves out what Darwin originally thought.
What we see with the hag-fish is an example of how we can use modern animals, that have not needed to evolve out of their particular biological niches, to prove out the basics of evolutionary theory.
Reply -
0%
scriblerus19 months, 1 week ago
I generally concur. However, the term "primitive" implies that evolution somehow progresses from primitive to less primitive, or maybe modern; from simple to complex.
Evolutionary theory is not about progress, except perhaps through time. The most important concept of evolutionary theory is natural selection, which means simply that the most viable organism has a greater chance of survival within a given set of environmental parameters. Therefore, this organism is more likely to pass on its genetic information.
Indeed, a high degree of genetic specificity can lead to a species dying out, as in the case of the Irish elk, which was adapted to a grassland environment. When the environment changed to dense forests, the elk with its massive antlers could be easily trapped by predators and likely disappeared because it could no longer successfully pass on its genes.
Reply-
0%
scriblerus19 months, 1 week ago
It is useful to think of individual organisms as little packets of chemical information whose goal is to reproduce this chemical information. In other words, within evolutionary theory, the individual organism's sole purpose is to pass on information. That form of a particular organism whose information packet has made it most capable within a given environment of passing on the genetic information is more likely to pass on that information. Sometimes greater complexity will improve its chances, but one can also imagine circumstances in which less complexity might also improve its chances. If unable to produce individuals capable of passing it on to progeny, the information packet dies out and ceases to exist.
Reply-
0%
quackpot9 months, 1 week ago
One might argue that bacteria are MUCH more highly evolved than are people. Bacteria, which evolve about 15,000 times faster than do people (generation of 30 min vs generation of 30 years) have dumped all of the useless stuff that humans have. Bacteria are akin to sports cars, people are akin to SUVs
Reply
-
-
0%
Bkumm9 months, 1 week ago
Possibly. Greater complexity, of necessity, requires greater input of energy. So, this greater complexity, especially of living things, will require vast amounts of energy which the Universe is currently losing. Now, is the loss of energy in the Universe a symptom of this tendency towards greater complexity in living things? If so, to have an impact there must be a very large number of living things within the Universe.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
AntiNeoCon9 months, 1 week ago
We can't handle the present, so why dwell on the past. Go Ricky!! :)
Reply
-
-
0%
Grrr9 months, 1 week ago
Speaking of eyes and evolution, thought I'd throw this interesting little tidbit out there. Picked it up way back when in a neuro-sci lab somewhere along the line...
Which animal has an eyeball that most closely resembles a human's?
Did you answer chimp? Wrong.
Octopus.
Yeah, I know, that's really a mindf*ck.
Reply-
-
0%
Bkumm9 months, 1 week ago
Actually, Grrr, it kind of makes sense. Octopi, in general, are animals that hunt in various light conditions and use sight as much as feel to find their prey. The human eye doesn't see particularly well at night, nor does it see particularly well during the day. However, humans, like octopi, are able to do both to some extent. Many animals have traded one for the other, humans have not.
Humans are truly amazing creatures, we don't do any one thing (except kill each other, which is almost certainly a function of intelligence) particularly well, but we do many things okay.
Reply -
0%
smithichie9 months, 1 week ago
An argument can be made that both the octopus and the squid have superior eyes, to humans, since they lack the blind spot our own eyes are burdened with.
Here is a link to some visual images that can show a person their blind spot and the effects it can cause.
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/chvision....
Reply
-
-
0%
Endoscopy9 months, 1 week ago
I just love it.
"But its vestigial "eye" might explain how vertebrate vision evolved."
Turns into:
"And as the process continues we see more and more how genetics proves out what Darwin originally thought."
from Bkumm.
Real proof? The words "vestigial" and "might explain" are real proof???
Reply-
0%
Bkumm9 months, 1 week ago
Well, I'm glad you love it.
You see, in science, a proof is something that strengthens or bolsters a theory. The hag fish eye, because it's 'primitive' (please see the discussion between srib and myself above as to this meaning) shows that there are intermediary steps between a 'primitive' and a 'complex' eye. This further cripples the already broken idea of irreducible complexity.
Reply -
-
0%
Endoscopy9 months, 1 week ago
I read the article.
'"Proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the available evidence." Notice that this has absolutely nothing to do with being right or wrong. It also has nothing to do with science either, since you can have logical conclusions in Social Studies, English, or any other subject.'
"In science we collect empirical evidence through the process of experimentation. If we collect enough evidence, we will probably notice patterns or regularities in the evidence, and then we will develop generalizations that describe what we have observed. These generalized descriptions of observed events are called scientific laws."
I pulled these two quotes from a site talking about what scientific proof is. The "vestigial eye" is a fact. But the "might explain" is just guess work. This has been the biggest problem with evolution. A collection of data that can have more than one possible explanation is not a proof.
Reply
-
-
0%
quackpot9 months, 1 week ago
unlike the CERTAINTY of the Baptist preacher explaining Divine Creation?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Bkumm9 months, 1 week ago
Yeah, I'm sorry about that. As I mentioned in the intro, this article is not complete, as you need a subscription for the whole thing.
But, there was enough there to post and make the point that the hag-fish has 'primitive' eyes vs. the 'complex' eyes that humans have and that this helps us in our understanding of evolution. Here's more info on the hag-fish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagfish
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://w...
Sexy, huh?
Reply
-
-
0%
SonOfTheMask9 months, 1 week ago
Good stuff, bkumm. Now tell me how you view this statement:
Evolutionary theory is the best scientific theory of the origin of species. It includes the ideas of origin by common ancestry, genetic drift and mutation, and natural selcection. It does not preclude the idea of God. However, a sizable number (probably a majority and possibly a significant majority) of evolutionists also view the universe as arising from natural causes ("naturalism").
Is it rational to believe that evolution in a naturalistic universe would give rise to beings capable of rational/abstract thought and would those cognitive faculties be "reliable"?
Reply-
0%
smithichie9 months, 1 week ago
SOTM
I don't know about the term "evolutionist". Is the Pope an 'evolutionist'? If so, the vast majority of 'evolutionists' believe in a created universe and created life.
Since we have so many examples of animals capable of rational/abstract thought, albeit to varied degrees, from humans, to chimps, to neanderthals, to dolphins, to pigs, to dogs, to believe that evolution wouldn't give rise to such beings denies that it obviously did. As to whether any gods were involved in the process, this remains unknown.
Evolution passes along traits that provide an advantage, having cognitive faculties provides obvious advantages but of course "reliability" of those faculties is never perfect, even in the most intelligent of examples, Einstein would have been just as susceptible to simple optical illusions we all experience, as one instance.
Reply-
0%
SonOfTheMask9 months, 1 week ago
I didn't ask if evolution could give rise to rational/abstract thought. I asked is it rational to believe that evolution in a naturalistic universe could giver rise to beings capable of such rational/abstract thought and would such cognitive faculties then be "reliable"?
In other words, I'm not questioning the evolution, I'm questioning evolution in a naturalistic universe rather than a created universe.
Reply
-
-
0%
Grrr9 months ago
SOM:
First you have to define rational thought. Most of what humans deceive themselves into believing is rational thought is merely a false rationalization to attempt to explain to ourselves purely reflexive behavior with no cognitive basis besides neural hardwiring. But, like repression of traumatic experience, this is a key survival trait of the ability to think and reason in the abstract at all. Otherwise there are too many concrete contradictions between our thoughts and our actions and interactions to reconcile without going bonkers.
Reply-
0%
Grrr9 months ago
So basically, we anthropomorphize humans as much as we do bambi and thumper. We're not as fundamentally rational or removed from purely animalistic reflex as we would like to believe.
With that in mind, on a higher level, purely rational thought (applied problem solving, not excuse-seeking rationalizations) would seem to have to be fairly reliable to be selected for. The nature of evolution.
Reply
-
-
0%
Helixbuilder9 months ago
In short yes! The reason an increases in fitness. If you want more go to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB400_1.html
Reply
-
0%
Bkumm9 months, 1 week ago
I believe, SOTM, that it is rational to believe that evolution would give rise to beings capable of abstract thought and that those faculties would be reliable.
I say this, simply because here on Earth, we have seen that evolution has handily filled almost every conceivable ecological and biological niche. So, one might ask why intelligence has not evolved among some other creature. And I think that is a valid point.
Reply-
0%
Beau78909 months, 1 week ago
I'm not sure you can say that because evolution has filled almost every conceivable niche necessarily means that our faculties are reliable, Bkumm. There is a limit to our perceptions. Since it's so hard to conceive of that which we haven't observed, or of which we haven't recognized a need, we have no idea what *could* be possible were man more imaginative. (Not that we're not--just that there is always unexplored territory--we are not and will never be omniscient.) In fact, complex intelligence (rationality) and even abstract thought (emotion) may be observed in studies of large sea mammals.
That said, belief in our own minds' reliability is itself rational--how else can we successfully interact with the world in which we live? And what we define as rational is in direct proportion to the reliability of the observations we make in order to form the thoughts in question.
In short, it works--which I believe was your conclusion.
Reply-
0%
SonOfTheMask9 months, 1 week ago
Natural selection rewards successful adaptation and adaptive behaviors (evolution) with survival. Our cognitive faculties are derived by evolution. Therefore, our cognitive faculties have evolved due to adaptive behavior rather than the "true beliefs." In other words, natural selection doesn't "care" whether what we believe is true or not, it only "cares" about behavior. If that is true, then can our cognitive faculties be considered "reliable" i.e. to provide us true beliefs?
Reply -
0%
Bkumm9 months ago
I did not form my thought correctly. I asked for time to contemplate the idea and then answered before I had fully thought through the implications. Please excuse me for my incomplete thought.
Read my response to SOTM further down the thread, it is more complete and more, well, rational. LOL>>
Reply
-
-
0%
dwemm9 months, 1 week ago
Define "intelligence" and explain how we know it exists.
We can identify intelligence in each other because of shared communication faculties. However, if intelligence existed in another in "some other creature" how would we tell?
A solitary animal might be highly intelligent, but not have a need to communicate with others of its kind unless to say "back off." How would such a creature evolve a set of communicators that would allow us to "read" its thoughts?
We have a complex set of signs and symbols that we use for communication. We can define these as such because of shared experiences, attitudes and beliefs. If communication is limited by a lack of shared meaning or hampered by noise or blocked by personal prejudice.
Rationality without the ability to recognize or communicate its existence may be irrelevant to the argument over the part a deity would play in the evolution of rationality.
Reply -
0%
SonOfTheMask9 months, 1 week ago
bkumm: "I believe, SOTM, that it is rational to believe that evolution would give rise to beings capable of abstract thought and that those faculties would be reliable." Well, that's not exactly what I was asking. My question makes it a given that evolution is the process by which humans attained abstract thought. My question is whether or not it is rational to believe that evolution in a universe that was not created ("naturalistic") results in beings that are capable of rational/abstract thought and whether, in a naturalistic universe, such evolved cognitive faculties can be deemed "reliable".
Reply-
0%
Bkumm9 months ago
Then I think that the question revolves around the word and definition of the word, reliable.
What exactly does that mean? Reliability means, I believe and only in this context, reproducibility, that is, if something is reproducible it is, by definition, rational. Unlike my use of the comma. LOL>>>
The physical and thus natural laws of the universe as we currently understand them lead to the conclusion that our faculties give us the reason to determine reliable and reproducible information. Thus, it follows that the universe can give rise to beings that are capable of abstract thought that is reliable in that sense.
Now, once we come out of the idea of rationality as reproducibility we reach the nether regions of philosophy where we find ourselves asking the eternal questions of why we are here and what is the purpose.
That, my friend, is a different question though, wouldn't you agree?
I hope that is a more complete answer to your question.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
HmacComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
deathray9 months, 1 week ago
For anyone who's interested, there's quite a good article in the New Yorker on the science of evolutionary virology and the impact (epigenetically) of killer viruses on the human genome...even though it has a focus on HIV, it appears to have relevance to this discussion:
Darwin's Surprise - Why are evolutionary biologists bringing back extinct deadly viruses?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/03/0...
Reply-
-
0%
Dicax_Maximus9 months, 1 week ago
DR - Scary stuff, but potential benefits........
Great find, thanks for posting. I'll finish reading it later, snoozy time !
Reply
-
Submitted By:
Bkumm
Ex-Navy, degrees in History and Marketing and Management.
Socially liberal, fiscal conservative.
Just following my own brand of atheistic spiritualism.
" [T]he only purpose for ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
Deidre
capn_caveman
MidnightPrism
idiosavant
charbarred
Helixbuilder
ciera-marie- eugenegerard
Ratskii- TGrass3001
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
