Re: The Baldwin Effect: What is it trying to say?

in article dn4khn$18j$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, whitesickle@xxxxxxx at
whitesickle@xxxxxxx wrote on 12/6/05 10:16 AM:

>> Learning is the most cited example of Baldwin's Effect. Yet ever since
>> recorded civilization humans have remained basically unchanged by
>> Darwinian evolution.
>
>
> Wow. I find this to be wildly at odds with my personal viewpoint.
> What
> reasoning or evidence do you have to support this claim.
>
> Response: You've always struck me as a "positive person". I'm not
> suggesting your scientific judgement is directly effected by it but I
> think it does have an influence. I don't have alot of evidence. There
> are some people I admire and I use them to make my point. This reveals
> that I'm influenced by them. I will quote Hawking here to answer your
> question:
>
> "But with the human race, evolution reached a critical stage,
> comparable in importance with the development of DNA. This was the
> development of language, and particularly written language. It meant
> that information can be passed on, from generation to generation, other
> than genetically, through DNA. There has been no detectable change in
> human DNA, brought about by biological evolution, in the ten thousand
> years of recorded history. But the amount of knowledge handed on from
> generation to generation has grown enormously. The DNA in human beings
> contains about three billion nucleic acids. However, much of the
> information coded in this sequence, is redundant, or is inactive. So
> the total amount of useful information in our genes, is probably
> something like a hundred million bits. One bit of information is the
> answer to a yes no question. By contrast, a paper back novel might
> contain two million bits of information. So a human is equivalent to 50
> Mills and Boon romances. A major national library can contain about
> five million books, or about ten trillion bits. So the amount of
> information handed down in books, is a hundred thousand times as much
> as in DNA.
>
> Even more important, is the fact that the information in books, can be
> changed, and updated, much more rapidly. It has taken us several
> million years to evolve from the apes. During that time, the useful
> information in our DNA, has probably changed by only a few million
> bits. So the rate of biological evolution in humans, is about a bit a
> year. By contrast, there are about 50,000 new books published in the
> English language each year, containing of the order of a hundred
> billion bits of information. Of course, the great majority of this
> information is garbage, and no use to any form of life. But, even so,
> the rate at which useful information can be added is millions, if not
> billions, higher than with DNA.
>
> This has meant that we have entered a new phase of evolution. At first,
> evolution proceeded by natural selection, from random mutations. This
> Darwinian phase, lasted about three and a half billion years, and
> produced us, beings who developed language, to exchange information.
> But in the last ten thousand years or so, we have been in what might be
> called, an external transmission phase. In this, the internal record of
> information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not
> changed significantly. But the external record, in books, and other
> long lasting forms of storage, has grown enormously. Some people would
> use the term, evolution, only for the internally transmitted genetic
> material, and would object to it being applied to information handed
> down externally. But I think that is too narrow a view. We are more
> than just our genes. We may be no stronger, or inherently more
> intelligent, than our cave man ancestors. But what distinguishes us
> from them, is the knowledge that we have accumulated over the last ten
> thousand years, and particularly, over the last three hundred. I think
> it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally
> transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human
> race."

I'm not sure why you think Hawking's statement is in conflict with my view.
I see them as entirely consistent. I agree with him that cultural evolution
has exploded in the human lineage, but he doesn't say and I don't believe
that it has replaced genetic evolution. To the contrary, I suspect that the
cascade of effects from the explosion of cultural evolution has probably
accelerated directional selection at the genetic level.

>> Our "learning" or education has increased as has
>> our knowledge but genetically we haven't much.
>
>
> I suppose the word "much" is subjective, so there is room for differing
> opinion on this claim. In my estimation, the human gene pool has changed
> enormously over the past few thousand years, given the constraints on gene
> pool evolution that accompany rapid population growth. I think that gene
> pools tend to change much more dramatically during times of population
> contraction, given the same selection pressures.
>
> Response: Well your a biologist and Hawking a theoretical physicist. I
> guess you no more or perhaps what you call gene pool evolution over the
> past few thousand years is different from DNA evolution.

I take the input of theoretical physicists on evolutionary theory very
seriously and, again, I agree with Hawking's statement.

>> Therefore, there hasn't
>> been any evidence of Baldwin's Effect on Darwinian evolution as I see.
>> If one defines evolution to also entail cultural evolution then I would
>> argue Baldwin's Effect has had some effect on evolution...but not a
>> whole lot.
>
>
> Well, yes I would certainly include cultural evolution in this subject,
> because individually plastic behaviors can become codified as cultural
> practices.
>
> Response: As Hawking stated?

I don't see where Hawking state how this would occur, but I do agree with
what he did say.

>> The only way I see Baldwin's Effect having a signifigant
>> effect is if the continuation of learning and knowledge goes beyond the
>> idea of effecting changes in phenotypic plasticity without a direct
>> connection between phenotype and genotype.
>
>
> Here is a classic, though somewhat hypothetical, illustration. Pinnipeds
> (seals and sea lions) evolved from canid ancestors.
>
> Response: They did or this is part of the hypothetical scenario. I get the
> impression they did.
>
> Imagine that the environment of the ancestral canid population changed such
> that this dog-like species was forced to forage for intertidal marine species,
> rather than say hunting for other large mammals (maybe in packs). This would
> be an example of behavioral plasticity.
>
> Response: What was it which forced the canid to forage for intertidal marine
> species?
>
> Now that these canids are depending on their ability to hunt for marine prey,
> any mutation that makes them better at doing so would be favored by selection.
>
> Response: Yes.
>
> Had the canids not manifested intertidal foraging behavior, this
> mutation would be of no value.
>
> Response: Yes, but what caused the canid to be forced into intertidal
> foraging behavior?

A change in the environment.

> Hence, this population of canids might have evolved into an early form
> of pinniped through the genetic codification of a behaviorally plastic
> change. Does this seem unlikely to you? I could see how it might seem
> like an unusual circumstance, but I would argue that we haven't
> explored this line of thinking well enough to reject it as a general
> phenomenon.
>
> Response: I think it is more complex.

I'm sure your right. :-)

Guy


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Molecular biology ... a crash course or a little help?
    ... > ID'er over on Yahoo I currently have no response to some claims due to ... > evolution ... He's asking how the system of using DNA to store and use genetic ... >>> functions necessary for protein synthesis. ...
    (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)
  • 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)