Re: Minimization principal for evolution


"Don" <Don.Steiger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dst7u4$hs0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I should have been more explicit in my original question. By a
minimization principal I mean in the sense of calculus; i.e. given a
function f the local minima occur when the derivative of the function
is zero. The specific minimization principal that I was thinking about
is potential energy minimization. This is physically very fundamental,
and applies to all physical processes. You can think of the potential
energy function, of a physical system, as a hyperdimensional surface
composed of hills (unstable states), valleys (stable states), and
mountain passes that connect the valleys. Evolution, to me, is a
process that moves a physical system from one valley (stable state) to
another valley by finding the mountain passes. Is this a perspective
that has been taken by anybody?


Don,

While just about every evolutionary stone has been turned over by at least
somebody, my own view of evolution is one whereby the process is a hit or
miss one and not one with directionality being a factor.

Some processes (and hence systems) ARE directional. If, for example, we
wanted to study underground water movements and tables, we would be able to
rely upon some consistency as constrained by what water tends to do in
respect to gravity. (It usually goes from a higher elevation above Earth's
center to a lower one, unless acted upon by gas pressures, heat, osmosis, or
some other secondary and perhaps even negligibly strong influence to the
contrary.

In biological evolution (at which I an not expert in the slightest) I
perceive no such persistent "attractor" to be at play but, rather, a random
process (not unlike random migration of gas molecules in a container, such
that they tend to become distributed ratably throughout). The "container"
would be Earth, insofar as referring to biology as an Earth science (and
omitting to include the extension of what we know of that in the current
interplanetary search for possible biological forms and processes).

Many biologists seem to me to attribute the diversity of life on Earth to
geographical determinations (envisioning most species variations over time
as being a result of something they call "adaptation" to differences
horizontal (i.e., existing at different places with different climate and
other parameters different) and vertical (i.e., differing in a single Earth
location, over the course of history).

My own view is that species simply are unable to maintain a consistent
morphology (by which I mean not only their outer mechanisms for interfacing
with externalities local to them but, also, that their mechanisms for
dealing with their internal ecologies change). The changes, per my view,
are a result of random mutations in gametes leading up to or during
fertilization. This is not purely theoretical. Genetics research can
observe genes that have happened. The causes of some gene copying errors
are known, and more are suspected. However, there is no evidence I know of,
that they are anything but random -- as opposed to being interactive with
environment or in pursuit of means of availing their hosts to any new
advantage, such as changing to exploit a new ecological niche, such as a new
food source, in a particular geographical location, or any such things.

Some of the "causes" of mutations are known. None of these causes, so far,
has demonstrated any pattern that is "guided" or "directed" toward
adaptation... at least, not to my knowledge. There are some mutations that
are INTERPRETED by some biological evolutionary theorists to do so, but no
mechanism whereby that might be achieved is known, I do not believe.

At to the causes of mutations, many are known. Certain electromagnetic
phenomena can cause them.
(Clinically originated X-rays, for example..., which is why operators of
nuclear medicine hardware wear lead aprons and leave the room when they
"zap" patients with them for imaging purposes, or to treat malignant tumors,
and such things." There are electromagnetic frequencies zipping through
gametes all the time from 'natural' sources. A right collision at the right
time, and a coding sequence in a sperm or ovum has a chance of coming up
with a "good" gene that enhances survival of future successions of progeny
but a FAR GREATER chance of coming up with one that will do more harm than
good. (Hence, my claim that the greatest irony in all of bio-evo is that
all the "good" genes are equivalent to winnings of the evolutionary lottery.

What causes mutations in germline cells or during fertilizations, if not
deliberate interactive adaption? There are some notorious ones: Certain
toxins in the environment are mutagenic and can impact germline cells as
well as somatic ones. Certain other electromagnetic frequencies can, and
do, penetrate bodies and impact germline cells and embryos. I once read of
a research study the results of which indicated overheating (as in a male's
taking hot soaking bath prior to sex) can result in mutations. Chromosomes
can get scrambled here and there by use of marijuana and other
pharmaceuticals... thalidomide, among them.

As you can see, these "agents of gene splicing changes, or errors" are NOT
in any way a part of a process of adaptation. And, if anyone knows of any
"agent of gene splicing errors" that CAN be associated with an adaptation
"directed" concatenation, I SINCERELY HOPE THEY WILL TELL YOU AND
ME ABOUT IT ! My purpose is to try to understand, and get new
information, and not to impress anyone.
(To anybody who knows of any mechanism that influences gene changes IN
RESPONSE to any stimulus in an external or internal ecology, or the
presence of a new niche in a food chain or some such thing by all means LAY
IT ON US.)

Meantime -- if gene copying errors are just made for no reason at all or, as
I am inclined to suspect, happen as a result of something impacting a gamete
randomly -- then, as you can see, there would be no prevailing force -- such
as in the studying of underground water tables and reservoirs, where gravity
persists perpetually.

What external and internal ecologies DO influence is... who gets to
reproduce. Obviously, if a baby does not live to reach the age of puberty
and find a member of the opposite sex to mate with, no pregnancy results,
and/or the new baby (whether or not it has a mutation) does not live long
enough to do likewise, then -- the chain of reproduction for that individual
and all others encountering such obstacles -- ends.
Dead organisms do not fertilize or get fertilized, so -- assuming that
babies usually resemble their parents somewhat -- the non-parents of a
non-child do not pass anything along.

Do you see any way, in such a scenario, that anything comparable to a
prevailing "attractor" such as gravity would come to play and create a
situation in which it makes any difference whatsoever is the shortest
distance between two points?

I do not.

Where there is a "fixed route" for something, such as when an electric
current (electrons) travel through an insulated wire, the course of a
current is along the wire.

Where there is a prevailing force, such as gravity, water, flowing downhill,
would seek out the shortest AVAILABLE route from a higher elevation above
Earth's center to a lower one.

Where there is only random variance -- only SUBSEQUENT TO THE RANDOM
CHANGE, OR ERROR, externalities would, indeed, FILTER the random change
events. That is, if a baby is born headless, it is not likely to play a
role in perpetuation of its species. If, on the other hand, if were to
happen to get extraordinarily good night vision, by way of a genetic
mutation, that might be very handy.
Hence, as I see it, random mutations get filtered NOT as a consequence of a
need to adapt, nor as a consequence of an opportunity to avail of a new
niche opportunity, but they just happened. And, once they happen, they TEND
to get filtered by both SUBSEQUENT sink or swim in a consistent set of
externalities, or to have added advantage, or increased disadvantage... as
things turn out, in even of a perpendicular externality change (over time in
a single Earth location as, say, elevation of the vicinity is pushed upward
by tectonic action below, and many successions follow).

To say that anything of the nature of "seeking out and availing of the
shortest distance between two conglomerations of genetic significance,
however, there is no prevailing "force" such as the channel through which an
electric current passes. Electrons traveling down an insulated wire
(channel), if there is a short to ground DO accessed the shortest distance
between two points. Repeat -- they DO, but only because electrons are
seeking equilibrium between polarities (positive flows to negative, as a
rule). By the same token, water flowing in a river, if an oxbow be cut
through at its bottom (like a narrowing neck of a bell shaped curve whereby
the bottom on each side becomes narrower until the current flows across and
leaves what is called an "oxbow lake," ... THESE ARE EXAMPLES OF
SOMETHING SEEKING EQUILIBRIUM and, hence, taking the path of least
resistance.

But there is ZERO EVIDENCE in biological evolution that there is any
seeking of equilibrium in morphology.

Don't misunderstand. I did not say that there are not equilibria in
biology -- such as an equilibrium between the amount of food of a given type
available and the number of animals in a restricted area relying upon that
food source. That is a matter of supply and demand.

But if you will think about it, there is no supply and demand relationship
between random change and externalities. In their operative scenario what
works just works and what does not work does not work.
Hence there are NO GUARANTEES... such that mutations will have a
directionality whereby they seek to provide a "trait" to meet an ecological
demand. It is precisely because there is NOT any such "directing" of
genetic mutations that some species go extinct. (Most biologists would
refer to this as "fail to adapt." I would not.)

If elephants could "adapt" in the Darwinian sense, they would be doing so
this very moment. They would, for example, be experimenting by, say,
ceasing to grow tusks (so that poachers would stop killing them to get
ivory), or by having smaller babies that can get by on less and less food
and stay out of agricultural crop areas (where the farmers have guns and can
get very unhappy). Elephants are NOT "experimenting" with ways to "adapt."
And unless the externalities themselves change, the elephants are going to
have to get lucky really soon, by some chance mutations that will "adapt" to
current conditions.

My prediction is that they cannot, will not, and are not even aware of a
NEED to experiment by coming up with genetic variations aimed at doing
anything to bring about any new morphologies among their offspring. If they
were going to do that, they are out of time. And their fate is just a
matter of time now.

For the elephants, the shortest distance between two evolutionary points
would be to start IMMEDIATELY, if not sooner, "adapting." And if that were
the way bio-evolution works, they would have "caught on" by now and kick
started their genes into doing what genes are supposed by SOME biologists to
do.

So... bottom line is... NO. I do not believe there is any capacity of
biological organisms -- individually nor collectively -- to AVAIL
themselves of any minimization... any cutting to the chase... any
accelerating and directing of a process of "adaptation," nor or choosing the
direction their genes (and subsequently the successive morphologies of their
offspring-to-come).

If I am wrong, I shall be MORE than glad to be corrected and provided so
much as even one shred of evidence that adaptation is directional,
responsive to environment (as opposed to simply filtered by it after the
genetic fact), or any other new twist on this issue.

In fact I would be delighted. But until then, my take is that there IS NOT
ANY prevailing minima-seeking (or equilibrium seeking) genetics-guiding
attractor nor eliminator at work whereby it might be possible.

(If you do not know this already, let me disclose that I type very, very
fast, and make many errors, and do not proofread; so if my words are
gibberish in spots, this is from carelessness. But, hopefully I have made
some sense between the lines, if not in them.)

g


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Direct Experimental Evidence for Non-Beneficial Gaps
    ... gene pool that has its own particular functional constraints. ... I'm talking about other proteins in the system also being allowed to evolve, specifically cytochrome b, c1, and the various pieces of cytochrome oxidase. ... They don't consider genetics. ... beneficial single point mutations could do what you claim they can. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: my little essay on the evolution vs. intelligent design case
    ... Whatever do you mean by "mistakes"? ... What about gene duplications? ... Mutations DO NOT have to happen in some sequential ... Beside gene duplications ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Article: Forcing Darwins hand: capturing natural selection in a flask
    ... mutations that pathogens will use in order to become resistant to ... Shamoo and graduate students ... one strain squeezed out almost all the competition by ... Though millions of mutations in the target gene are believed to have ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man
    ... > genes" may become active when the environment changes. ... No evolution has taken place. ... can call forth specific gene mutations. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: parallels
    ... Maybe the reason I resent the hell out of terminology which personifies ... because one of the most fundamental of all principles about science is dogma ... The issue for me is not whether biologists understand exactly what ... Every time I hear the term "selfish gene" it hits me like a slap in the ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)