 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Bio Evolution Forum » How do Organisms Evolve... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Tom Hendricks... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
How do organism Evolve? One text, Fundamentals of Biochemistry by
Voet, Voet, and Pratt gives 4 points. But I suggest some updates.
1. Evolution is not directed toward a particular goal.
It''s directed toward better catabolic and anabolic biochemical
pathways. And better replication too.
2. Evolution requires some built-in sloppiness, which allows organisms
to adapt to unexpected changes.
Sloppiness yes but less sloppiness in the production of ATP, the
catabolic side of metabolism, and more sloppiness in the use of the
ATP, the anabolic side of metabolism.
3. Evolution is constrained by its past.
Yes and the catabolic breakdown of molecules has evolved to similar
variations on that process - digestion, protection (by breaking down
non-self in the cell), and waste out, (by removing non self and waste
material).
4. Evolution is ongoing.
Yes but once the metabolic pathways are set, they are seldom changed
except in the most extreme conditions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Edser... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom Hendricks <tom-hendricks at (no spam) att.net> asked:-
[quote]How do organism Evolve?
[/quote]
JE:-
The short answer: the don't. Fertile organisms are alone selected
allowing populations of same to evolve. Empirically, populations are
not selected and organisms do not evolve. If this was the case then it
falsifies Darwinian evolutionary theory.
[quote]One text, Fundamentals of Biochemistry by
Voet, Voet, and Pratt gives 4 points. But I suggest some updates.
1. Evolution is not directed toward a particular goal.
[/quote]
JE:-
If a maximand fitness can be regarded to be a valid "goal" then nature
can be supposed to be "directed". The falsifiable Darwinian theory (not
the, oversimplified, non falsifiable Neo Darwinian model) proposes,
without a single exception, that every parent must maximize the total
number of fertile forms it reproduces per population. This I term Total
Darwinian Fitness (TDF). Like Einstein's c (the maximand velocity of
light is a vacuum), TDF provides the only falsifiable frame of reference
evolutionary theory has because it represents the only falsifiable
fitness constant within evolutionary theory.
[quote]snip
[/quote]
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser at (no spam) ozemail.com.au |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Aridaman Pandit... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]1. Evolution is not directed toward a particular goal.
It''s directed toward better catabolic and anabolic biochemical
pathways. And better replication too.
[/quote]
Evolution is not directed towards anything. A sytem/organism when put
into certain condition tends to adapt towards that condition. If it
does not adapt/ if it is not fit enough, it does not survive. By
directed evolution you are saying that there is a predefined path.
Which is absolutely not true. Hence there is nothing like a better
pathway.
[quote]2. Evolution requires some built-in sloppiness, which allows organisms
to adapt to unexpected changes.
Sloppiness yes but less sloppiness in the production of ATP, the
catabolic side of metabolism, and more sloppiness in the use of the
ATP, the anabolic side of metabolism.
[/quote]
Sloppiness?? First of all let us call it variability. Now when we talk
of variability we talk about populations. So when populations evolve,
organisms of the given population evolve towards the environment. Now
in a particular environment, in order to survive tend to organisms
adapt towards those pathways which help them survive better. Now there
can be some individuals that have better fitness of a particular
pathway compared to others. However, some of the other organisms with
less fit pathway can also survive provided they cross a particular
threshold of fitness. So in reality the variability is the product
available options in the fitness landscape and that is not sloppiness.
Rather it is opposite of sloppiness as there is no boundation to have
only the fittest pathway.
What you are assuming is that there is only binary fitness landscape.
I am sure it is the easiest assumption, but I am also sure it is the
wrong one.
[quote]3. Evolution is constrained by its past.
Yes and the catabolic breakdown of molecules has evolved to similar
variations on that process - digestion, protection (by breaking down
non-self in the cell), and waste out, (by removing non self and waste
material).
[/quote]
Evolution can also occur by mechanisms like Horizontal Gene Transfer
when different populations coexist and some genes get transfered
horizontally/longitudinally from different species all together. I
totally dont understand what you mean by "catabolic breakdown of
molecules has evolved to similar
variations on that process"
[quote]4. Evolution is ongoing.
Yes but once the metabolic pathways are set, they are seldom changed
except in the most extreme =A0conditions.
[/quote]
Evolution is definately ongoing. However, the sentence under it a bit
dubious. Metabolic pathways are also constantly evolving. Simplest
cases are where organisms when living on a particular source say
glucose are put in conditions where lactose is the source. There are
numerous examples present in literature that tell tales of ongoing
changes in metabolic pathways. Nevertheless, I agree to the point that
drastic changes in orgaisms require drastic change of environment.
All in all to summarize, evolution is not a force but an effect of
changes in environment. I think you should read things like "Red queen
hypothesis" where you doubts about BEST pathway/ BEST organism will
clear up. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Hendricks... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 26, 12:31=A0am, Aridaman Pandit <pandit.arida... at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]1. Evolution is not directed toward a particular goal.
It''s directed toward better catabolic and anabolic biochemical
pathways. And better replication too.
Evolution is not directed towards anything. A sytem/organism when put
into certain condition tends to adapt towards that condition. If it
does not adapt/ if it is not fit enough, it does not survive. By
directed evolution you are saying that there is a predefined path.
Which is absolutely not true. Hence there is nothing like a better
pathway.
[/quote]
Can you suggest ways that a system / organism, adapted to the
environment, in a way
that was worse catabolic or anabolic processes? How can something
adapt in a way
that their metabolic processes are worse, and that makes them more
fit?
Why would worse metabolism in any environment be selected for?
[quote]
2. Evolution requires some built-in sloppiness, which allows organisms
to adapt to unexpected changes.
Sloppiness yes but less sloppiness in the production of ATP, the
catabolic side of metabolism, and more sloppiness in the use of the
ATP, the anabolic side of metabolism.
Sloppiness?? First of all let us call it variability.
[/quote]
Sloppiness was the word used by the text. I kinda like it.
Now when we talk
[quote]of variability we talk about populations. So when populations evolve,
organisms of the given population evolve towards the environment. Now
in a particular environment, in order to survive tend to organisms
adapt towards those pathways which help them survive better.
[/quote]
How can worse metabolism help them survive better?
Now there
[quote]can be some individuals that have better fitness of a particular
pathway compared to others. However, some of the other organisms with
less fit pathway can also survive provided they cross a particular
threshold of fitness. So in reality the variability is the product
available options in the fitness landscape and that is not sloppiness.
Rather it is opposite of sloppiness as there is no boundation to have
only the fittest pathway.
What you are assuming is that there is only binary fitness landscape.
I am sure it is the easiest assumption, but I am also sure it is the
wrong one.
3. Evolution is constrained by its past.
Yes and the catabolic breakdown of molecules has evolved to similar
variations on that process - digestion, protection (by breaking down
non-self in the cell), and waste out, (by removing non self and waste
material).
Evolution can also occur by mechanisms like Horizontal Gene Transfer
when different populations coexist and some genes get transfered
horizontally/longitudinally from different species all together. I
totally dont understand what you mean by "catabolic breakdown of
molecules has evolved to similar
variations on that process"
[/quote]
Catabolic processes that break down molecules - evolved to digestive
processes that break down molecules. That evolved to digestive
processes
that break down non-self and help protect the cell. That also evolved
to ways
of digest molecules, or attack non-self molecules and 'digest' them,
and then excrete them out of the cell - waste out.
Catabolic processes that break down molecules evolved to
digestion, protection, and waste out processes in the cell.
By looking at catabolic and anabolic processes as somewhat separate,
you can see how each evolved to separate roles. Catabolic helps
break down, protect by breaking down, and waste out as part of
breaking down and removing.
Remember evolution is constrained by its past - and its past is
catabolic or anabolic pathways - so everything evolved from those two.
There is nothing else to evolve from except the two metabolic
pathways.
It's a new way to look at evolution and it's difficult for many to
imagine.
[quote]
4. Evolution is ongoing.
Yes but once the metabolic pathways are set, they are seldom changed
except in the most extreme conditions.
Evolution is definately ongoing. However, the sentence under it a bit
dubious. Metabolic pathways are also constantly evolving. Simplest
cases are where organisms when living on a particular source say
glucose are put in conditions where lactose is the source. There are
numerous examples present in literature that tell tales of ongoing
changes in metabolic pathways. Nevertheless, I agree to the point that
drastic changes in orgaisms require drastic change of environment.
[/quote]
Once the metabolic pathways were set up they changed little.
Plants are not going to shift away from photosynthesis without an
extremely strong selection pressure.
I suggest that one of the most
conserved processes is how ATP is made - the catabolic processes
that produce ATP.l Then I suggest that catabolic and anabolic are
separate processes (they have to be) and that the catabolic processes
are more conserved
while the anabolic processes - the uses of that ATP - are more
varied.
It's a way of looking at life as separate catabolic and anabolic
processes.
This again is a new way to look at life that may give some real
insight.
[quote]
All in all to summarize, evolution is not a force but an effect of
changes in environment. I think you should read things like "Red queen
hypothesis" where you doubts about BEST pathway/ BEST organism will
clear up.
[/quote]
I don't see how worse metabolism can be selected for. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Aridaman Pandit... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I think the problem is that you think binary. Its not 0 and 1 always.
It s not always Best/Worse. It is whether it helps you survive or not.
A pathway which is not helping will be eliminated that is true, but
that does not mean that there is only 1 way to solve the problem. And
in course of evolution nature solves the problem in different ways,
which you called sloppiness. I would say its an insult to the
innovativeness which is a product of evolution.
Secondly you say that there is a separate pathway to break, and
separate pathway to join. Now did you ever come across any pathway
that does not break and join?? Let me help you imagine.. Suppose I
give you a molecule (may be a model of it in your hand). Now I ask you
to do whatever you want. What all things can you do?
1. Either you break a part of it.
2. Or you join something to it
3. Or you keep it as it is.
Do you see now. It not that nature has stuck to any solution because
of its past. But it has got to all the solutions which are possible.
So it is not constraint of its past but of possiblities? Had there
been something like global best ie. best in all kind of environments,
it would have sweeped the entire population/populations that exist on
earth. Even the most basic pathways like glycolysis has so many
variants. Then look at TCA cycle, where both catabolism and anabolism
works in tandem in one cycle. So reality is not binary neither it is
stupid. Once you open up your head for non binary possibilities you
will realize the power of evolution.
And for you example of variations that are neutral, I would suggest
try googling, I know it is easy but since you are not able to search
through google properly so for hints try these keywords: "Neutral
variations" or "Coalescent Theory" or "fitness lanscapes".
Again I am stressing on the point: "Nature has an option to choose any
point on rugged fitness landscape, now there are several cases where
nature does not reach the global maxima of fitness but settles for
local maximas, and even for intermediates." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lorentz... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 11:44=A0am, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 26, 12:31=3DA0am, Aridaman Pandit <pandit.arida... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
I don't see how worse metabolism can be selected for.
For one thing, the "worse metabolism" may be genetically linked to[/quote]
some other feature which is "better." Suppose there goes a mutation
that speeds up metabolism in a niche where slow metabolism is better,
but improves the eyesight of the animal. Suppose the eyesight in this
niche is more critical than slow metabolism. Then evolution will lead
to better eyesight, but worse metabolism.
I think there are patterns in evolution that repeat themselves
in many lineages. One could these patterns a "preferred direction,"
but that is semantics. Most evolutionary scientists look for such
patterns. Regardless, nature is never bound to any of these patterns.
Clouds are often used as a metaphor for wishful thinking. One
can see any picture one wants in clouds. You can imagine different
objects in the sky. At the same time, there are real patterns that
form out of clouds. As any meteorologist, or look at the sky itself.
These patterns have a real basis in physics. The problem we have is
distinguishing imaginary objects from physically real patterns. I
think what is needed in these cases is tighter consideration of the
physics in the system one is looking for. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Edser... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tom Hendricks <tom-hendricks at (no spam) att.net> wrote:-
[quote]Can you suggest ways that a system / organism, adapted to the
environment, in a way
that was worse catabolic or anabolic processes? How can something
adapt in a way
that their metabolic processes are worse, and that makes them more
fit?
[/quote]
JE:-
These processes are only required to remain optimal, IOW, they are NOT
maximized. Cold blooded reptiles do not grieve because they have a lower
("worse") metabolic rate when compared to mammals. They simply do not
need it. The downside: Mammals are forced to pay a much higher metabolic
investment premium. Investing in what (on a falsifiable basis)? The
total number of fertile forms each parent reproduces per population (TDF).
Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF) is alone maximized within evolutionary
theory. Note that TDF only allows fertile organisms to be selected and
populations of same to evolve. IOW fertile organisms do not evolve and
populations are not selected. These represent falsifications of
Darwinian theory. If the reverse is also allowed (as it is within the
Neo Darwinian model of Darwinism) then evolutionary theory is reduced to
just an empty, non falsifiable tautology. This does not matter to
mathematicians but must matter to bona fide evolutionary science.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser at (no spam) ozemail.com.au |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Hendricks... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:42=A0am, Lorentz <drosen0... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 11:44=3DA0am, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
On Oct 26, 12:31=3D3DA0am, Aridaman Pandit <pandit.arida... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
I don't see how worse metabolism can be selected for.
=A0For one thing, the "worse metabolism" may be genetically linked to
some other feature which is "better." Suppose there goes a mutation
that speeds up metabolism in a niche where slow metabolism is better,
but improves the eyesight of the animal. Suppose the eyesight in this
niche is more critical than slow metabolism. Then evolution will lead
to better eyesight, but worse metabolism.
[/quote]
But go further. What is the better eyesight FOR? It's either for
better protecting the animal (catabolic breakdown of non nurturing) or
for getting
more or better food - nurturing in (anabolic build up of nurturing).
Or possibly better reproduction strategies for
descendants to have better metabolism.
Better eyesight is just another way to improve metabolism , and better
adapt to the environment. Thoughts? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Hendricks... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:42=A0am, Aridaman Pandit <pandit.arida... at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]I think the problem is that you think binary. Its not 0 and 1 always.
It s not always Best/Worse. It is whether it helps you survive or not.
A pathway which is not helping will be eliminated that is true, but
that does not mean that there is only 1 way to solve the problem. And
in course of evolution nature solves the problem in different ways,
which you called sloppiness. I would say its an insult to the
innovativeness which is a product of evolution.
[/quote]
Metabolism is defined, not by me but by science as anabolic or
metabolic.
We have to build on what's there. We can't build on what's not there.
What I suggest is not that everything is neatly one or the other. But
what
I do say is that there is a MAJOR trend of separation of the two, and
each
evolving separately, a lot. Not always but still a major trend. And
that looking at
life as two somewhat separate processes in many ways, opens the door
to a lot of insight.
Why did they evolve separately? Because they are opposites. They can't
work at the same time and the same place. You can't build up and break
down
at the same time and the same place. And the processes are so
different that
they demand different regulation. Catabolic enzymes that break down
food, or attack non-self,
are usually highly acidic, and have to be kept separate. That is a
basic evolved difference
between the two.
And as a side note I wonder no one, talking about the origin of life
has wondered
how life began such two opposite processes at the start at the same
time? That's a major puzzle or clue to me.
If I recognize that sometimes catabolic and anabolic are in tandem, do
you recognize
the times when they have evolved separately? If I am to be less
binary, then so
must you with your view that they have always blended into one.
[quote]Secondly you say that there is a separate pathway to break, and
separate pathway to join. Now did you ever come across any pathway
that does not break and join?? Let me help you imagine.. Suppose I
give you a molecule (may be a model of it in your hand). Now I ask you
to do whatever you want. What all things can you do?
1. Either you break a part of it.
2. Or you join something to it
3. Or you keep it as it is.
[/quote]
You have realized what I am saying. We have to work with the obvious
and the real. My example would be we can break down, catabolic,
or synthesize, anabolic, or do nothing. Agreed. Now the question is
this, is every step catabolic and anabolic at the very same moment in
the
very same place? I say no - and that opens the door to them being
separate, and evolving separately.
[quote]
Do you see now. It not that nature has stuck to any solution because
of its past. But it has got to all the solutions which are possible.
So it is not constraint of its past but of possiblities? Had there
been something like global best ie. best in all kind of environments,
it would have sweeped the entire population/populations that exist on
earth. Even the most basic pathways like glycolysis has so many
variants.
[/quote]
But once a metabolic pathway is set up it is perhaps the most
conserved aspect of any genome. The evolving part is what is done
with the ATP. I will recognize that metabolic pathways do evolve,
if you'll admit they are highly conserved. Note the metabolic
similarities of
all photosynthesizing plants. In a sense when a metabolic pathway
does work, it does sweep entire populations on earth - or rather
entire populations evolved from a few basic metabolic ways.
Look at the metabolic pathways - there are basically very few.
Energy from the sun, or from other living things.
That takes up all life except the chemoautotrophs.
Then look at TCA cycle, where both catabolism and anabolism
[quote]works in tandem in one cycle. So reality is not binary neither it is
stupid. Once you open up your head for non binary possibilities you
will realize the power of evolution.
[/quote]
I see all that. Now its your turn to see, that it is not as random as
you may have thought. The pathways for evolution are really only
variants of catabolic or anabolic. As we said above there is nothing
else to work with. Yes evolution is changeable, but in every
instance
in every species does the change hurt the species to better exist
or worse exist in its environment. And the better existence is back
to metabolism. And metabolism is catabolic or anabolic.
These are our only players. We can't work with tools that don't exist.
[quote]And for you example of variations that are neutral, I would suggest
try googling, I know it is easy but since you are not able to search
through google properly so for hints try these keywords: "Neutral
variations" or "Coalescent Theory" or "fitness lanscapes".
[/quote]
Yes of course. Granted. Now it's your turn to see that when metabolism
changes, if not neutral, it can only get better catabolic or
anabolic. That's the only parts
we have to evolve. Movement, replication, eyesight, you name it,
every evolved step is sooner or later selected for better metabolism.
True, evolution may be neutral. Ok. But that doesn't disavow my point
that the catabolic anabolic split is a key factor of life.
[quote]Again I am stressing on the point: "Nature has an option to choose any
point on rugged fitness landscape, now there are several cases where
nature does not reach the global maxima of fitness but settles for
local maximas, and even for intermediates."
[/quote]
But fitness is for what? My answer is metabolism or replication for
better metabolism
in the species. You can't stop the argument at the word fitness.
Fitness for what?
It always comes back to metabolism. And metabolism is, if you look, is
separate much of the time - not all the time - into two separate and
often
opposite processes.
Comment? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lorentz... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 1:16=A0pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 10:42=3DA0am, Lorentz <drosen0... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 11:44=3D3DA0am, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
On Oct 26, 12:31=3D3D3DA0am, Aridaman Pandit <pandit.arida... at (no spam) gmail.c=
om
wrote:
I don't see how worse metabolism can be selected for.
=3DA0For one thing, the "worse metabolism" may be genetically linked to
some other feature which is "better." Suppose there goes a mutation
that speeds up metabolism in a niche where slow metabolism is better,
but improves the eyesight of the animal. Suppose the eyesight in this
niche is more critical than slow metabolism. Then evolution will lead
to better eyesight, but worse metabolism.
But go further. What is the better eyesight FOR? =A0
It can be for a lot of things. In fact, it is used for a lot of[/quote]
things that don't fit comfortably in your dichotomy.
[quote]It's either for
better protecting the animal (catabolic breakdown of non nurturing) or
for getting
more or better food - nurturing in (anabolic build up of nurturing).
It could be for finding a mate.[/quote]
Is mating catabolic or anabolic?
It could be for finding the safest shelter from enemies.
Is finding shelter catabolic or anabolic?
It could be for finding the best path to avoid enemies (i.e.,
running)?
Is running from enemies catabolic or anabolic?
It could be for navigation during a seasonal migration.
Is seasonal migration catabolic or anabolic?
I know you will find a way to fit my examples into this "catabolic-
anabolic" dichotomy of yours. However, I will argue that they will be
force fits. They won't lead to any predictions or even any persuasive
insights into evolution.
Of course, everything has to do with catabolic or anabolic
reactions. That's exactly the problem with this type of conjecture.
There is no unique decomposition of anabolic and catabolic behaviors.
They are chemical terms that have direct connection with the
biochemistry of the cell. However, higher orders of organization
aren't really classifiable in terms of anabolic and catabolic.
[quote]Or possibly better reproduction strategies for
descendants to have better metabolism.
Better eyesight is just another way to improve metabolism , and better
adapt to the environment. Thoughts?
I don't know what "improve metabolism" really means.[/quote]
Metabolism is sometimes defined in terms of the amount of energy an
organism emits. Even so, I still don't know what an "improved
metabolism" is. There is no quantitative connection between what we
call eyesight and what we call metabolism.
One needs a metabolism to have eyesight. One doesn't need
eyesight to have metabolism. I really don't know how eyesight can be
said to improve metabolism. If you drive blindfolded, you may get
killed. That would certainly corrupt ones metabolism. However, it
seems to me that catabolic and anabolic reactions would be equally
slowed down.
My point wasn't about your metabolism-dichotomy model. Genetic
linkages make it difficult to pinpoint the selective advantage in a
mutation. There are trade offs to every mutation. Sometimes a feature
may evolve that seems to be a disadvantage, but the feature may be
linked to another feature that is an advantage.
You use the word "improve" as though fitness has only two
directions. There are all sorts of "improve." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Hendricks... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 10:34=A0am, Lorentz <drosen0... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 1:16=3DA0pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:42=3D3DA0am, Lorentz <drosen0... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 11:44=3D3D3DA0am, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wr=
ote:
On Oct 26, 12:31=3D3D3D3DA0am, Aridaman Pandit <pandit.arida... at (no spam) gma=
il.c=3D
om
wrote:
I don't see how worse metabolism can be selected for.
=3D3DA0For one thing, the "worse metabolism" may be genetically linke=
d to
some other feature which is "better." Suppose there goes a mutation
that speeds up metabolism in a niche where slow metabolism is better,
but improves the eyesight of the animal. Suppose the eyesight in this
niche is more critical than slow metabolism. Then evolution will lead
to better eyesight, but worse metabolism.
But go further. What is the better eyesight FOR? =3DA0
=A0 =A0 It can be for a lot of things. In fact, it is used for a lot of
things that don't fit comfortably in your dichotomy.>It's either for
better protecting the animal (catabolic breakdown of non nurturing) or
for getting
more or better food - nurturing in (anabolic build up of nurturing).
=A0 =A0 It could be for finding a mate.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Is mating catabolic or anabolic?
[/quote]
Sex may be. Did you see my list of what this could mean?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.evolution/browse_thread/thread/d861d=
19e5373b4f2
The sex differences are clear to me. Male is slightly more protector
- catabolic, female is slightly more nurturer - anabolic
That is why there are two sexes instead of 5 or nine in most species
that have sex.
[quote]=A0 =A0 It could be for finding the safest shelter from enemies.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Is finding shelter catabolic or anabolic?
=A0 =A0 It could be for finding the best path to avoid enemies (i.e.,
running)?
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Is running from enemies catabolic or anabolic?
=A0 =A0 It could be for navigation during a seasonal migration.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Is seasonal migration catabolic or anabolic?
[/quote]
No matter what the organism does - it is to better fit the
environment.
All the above better fit the environment. The only way any organism
can
better fit the environment is using their energy for work. We are
back to metabolism
And metabolism is catabolic and anabolic - sometimes in tandem, a lot
of the times not in tandem.
Specifically
I suggest that catabolic breakdown has evolved to all ways an organism
breaks down - PROTECTION
I suggest that anabolic build up has evolved to all ways an organism
builds up - NURTURE
How come imagining mythical dragons, and flying horses is easy but
imagining
life evolving from catabolic/ and anabolic processes is impossible?
[quote]
=A0 =A0I know you will find a way to fit my examples into this "catabolic=
-
anabolic" dichotomy of yours. However, I will argue that they will be
force fits. They won't lead to any predictions or even any persuasive
insights into evolution.
[/quote]
Read more. From just a few months of looking at life as this split,
I've seen insight into major problems in biology. Study these posts
more.
I've barely begun to touch the surface of this iceberg.
[quote]=A0 =A0Of course, everything has to do with catabolic or anabolic
reactions. That's exactly the problem with this type of conjecture.
There is no unique decomposition of anabolic and catabolic behaviors.
[/quote]
Yes there is. Why do you say that? Look at the new post, MORE specific
points.
The evidence is clear .
[quote]They are chemical terms that have direct connection with the
biochemistry of the cell. However, higher orders of organization
aren't really classifiable in terms of anabolic and catabolic.
[/quote]
You are saying that like it has been proved? Please show me where.
That is an assumption - a wrong assumption, a wrong assumption that no
one before now
has tested. Don't make up stuff and say its the law.
We, humans have a psychology to not change, and oppose what's new.
Granted - but it's time to overcome that when you see the evidence.
[quote]Or possibly better reproduction strategies for
descendants to have better metabolism.
Better eyesight is just another way to improve metabolism , and better
adapt to the environment. Thoughts?
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I don't know what "improve metabolism" really mean=
s.
Metabolism is sometimes defined in terms of the amount of energy an
organism emits. Even so, I still don't know what an "improved
metabolism" is. There is no quantitative connection between what we
call eyesight and what we call metabolism.
[/quote]
No matter what is naturally selected for in any circumstance, it
always
better protects or nurtures the organism. Every step is an evolved
form of fitting
the environment. Every step is using the energy from metabolism to
better fit. Every step either protects, or nurtures.
Protects =3D evolved catabolism, nurtures =3D evolved anabolism.
Eyesight does both. It protects from enemies, but also allows
the organism to see to get food and nurture. Eyesight is an evolved
step for some species to protect and/or nurture (evolved catabolism
or anabolism.
Mobility - better move toward food, but also move away from enemies.
etc. etc.
[quote]=A0 =A0 =A0One needs a metabolism to have eyesight. One doesn't need
eyesight to have metabolism. I really don't know how eyesight can be
said to improve metabolism. If you drive blindfolded, you may get
killed. That would certainly corrupt ones metabolism. However, it
seems to me that catabolic and anabolic reactions would be equally
slowed down.
=A0 =A0 =A0 My point wasn't about your metabolism-dichotomy model. Geneti=
c
linkages make it difficult to pinpoint the selective advantage in a
mutation. There are trade offs to every mutation. Sometimes a feature
may evolve that seems to be a disadvantage, but the feature may be
linked to another feature that is an advantage.
[/quote]
Yeah it's tricky. But overall its fitness that is selected for , and
that
fitness is for better metabolism OR replication such that the species
has better metabolism down the line - which is just a more specific
way of saying
they are naturally selected.
[quote]=A0 =A0 You use the word "improve" as though fitness has only two
directions. There are all sorts of "improve."
[/quote]
No there is not. It is always either better catabolic or anabolic.
You can't make up things and walk away. Suggest improvements
that neither protect or nurture.
You may suggest they do neither. But that is not an improvement. That
is neutral.
This works from viruses - up to humans.
This is really a big deal - once you open your mind to a different
paradigm shift (looking at life , not on the molecular biology level
only, but
as a split between anabolic and catabolic too,) you'll see it.
I need Thomas Kuhn to step in here. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Hendricks... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PS I wanted to add this, thanks for everyone's thoughtful comments and
considerations on these ideas. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Helen Hansma... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"The sex differences are clear to me. Male is slightly more protector
- catabolic, female is slightly more nurturer - anabolic
That is why there are two sexes instead of 5 or nine in most species
that have sex."
I think anabolic and catabolic are being severely misused here.
If our anabolic and catabolic processes are out of balance, we gain or
lose weight, male or female.
And there are species with 5 or 9 sexes, where sex is defined as who
[i.e., which group[s]] may mate with whom. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Aridaman Pandit... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]The sex differences are clear to me. Male is slightly more =A0protector
- catabolic, female is slightly more nurturer - anabolic
That is why there are two sexes instead of 5 or nine in most species
that have sex.
What do you mean by male is more protector - catabolic. Thats the[/quote]
craziest thing that you could have said. Ok lets see how you can prove
it. Prove that males have more catabolic reactions or females have
more anabolic reactions. And I mean hard proof not your piece of mind,
but something scientific.
[quote]All the above better fit the environment. The only way any organism
can
better fit the environment is using their energy for work. =A0We are
back to metabolism
[/quote]
Well when you say it like that you sound more like creationist lunatic
to me. The ONLY way to fit is better metabolism? Why? An organism can
have very efficient metabolism but have a broken leg. How does that
organism fits better in the environment.And moreover, a different
individual who produces less energy than the former may be able to
survive better just because it does not have a broken leg.
Imagine a dear and panther chase, ie a prey predator system. Here both
fit the environment they are living. Had one better there would have
either been no prey or no predator, so there is something known as
dynamics which is not binary. Also it is based on hard facts and logic
not some imagination.
[quote]How come imagining mythical dragons, and flying horses is easy but
imagining
life evolving from catabolic/ and anabolic processes is impossible?
[/quote]
Well if you want to say that your theory is as ficticious as flying
horses then I have no problem. In fact i feel sorry that you are part
of a scientific group. There are other groups where you will be
appreciated. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lorentz... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 12:17=A0pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 10:34=3DA0am, Lorentz <drosen0... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 1:16=3D3DA0pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:42=3D3D3DA0am, Lorentz <drosen0... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 11:44=3D3D3D3DA0am, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net=
wr=3D
ote:
On Oct 26, 12:31=3D3D3D3D3DA0am, Aridaman Pandit <pandit.arida...=
at (no spam) gma=3D
il.c=3D3D
om
wrote:
I don't see how worse metabolism can be selected for.
=3D3D3DA0For one thing, the "worse metabolism" may be genetically l=
inke=3D
d to
some other feature which is "better." Suppose there goes a mutation
that speeds up metabolism in a niche where slow metabolism is bette=
r,
but improves the eyesight of the animal. Suppose the eyesight in th=
is
niche is more critical than slow metabolism. Then evolution will le=
ad
to better eyesight, but worse metabolism.
But go further. What is the better eyesight FOR? =3D3DA0
=3DA0 =3DA0 It can be for a lot of things. In fact, it is used for a lo=
t of
things that don't fit comfortably in your dichotomy.>It's either for
better protecting the animal (catabolic breakdown of non nurturing) o=
r
for getting
more or better food - nurturing in (anabolic build up of nurturing).
=3DA0 =3DA0 It could be for finding a mate.
=3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Is mating catabolic or anabolic?
Sex may be. =A0Did you see my list of what this could mean?http://groups.=
google.com/group/sci.bio.evolution/browse_thread/thread...
19e5373b4f2
The sex differences are clear to me. Male is slightly more =A0protector
- catabolic, female is slightly more nurturer - anabolic
Your choice is arbitrary. There is no reason to associate any[/quote]
sort of chemical process with any sort of chemical reaction. A
nurturer can be more anabolic (what ever that means) than a protector.
There is no self evident connection between styles of parenting and
this biochemical dichotomy.
In most species of animals, neither parent takes care of the
young. So your model fails with most species. For most of the
remaining species, it is the mother that protects the offspring while
the father wanders. Of course, there are species where the female
protects and the father nurtures.
There are some species where the father nurtures and the female
runs off. Most of these species are fish. Electric eels, largemouth
bass, and sea horses are all fish that have nurturing fathers and
wandering mothers. The hellbender is a salamander (e.g., amphibian)
where the father protects the children from all predators including
the mother. The mother hellbender doesn't recognize her own eggs, and
will eat them if she could. The male hell bender has to chase her
away.
Of course, our species specializes in plasticity. You have
families and entire cultures where the usual family structure is
reversed. Human beings have all sorts of life styles.
The only thing that seems to connect all your ideas is the number
two. Every time there is some type of dichotomy, you immediately
associate it with the catabolic/anabolic dichotomy. There is no
physical reason why all dichotomies have to be related.
[quote]That is why there are two sexes instead of 5 or nine in most species
that have sex.
A correlation is not an explanation. You have not provided a[/quote]
chemical or physical reason that two types of metabolism causes
selection toward two types of sexes.
[quote]=3DA0 =3DA0 It could be for finding the safest shelter from enemies.
=3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Is finding shelter catabolic or anabolic?
=3DA0 =3DA0 It could be for finding the best path to avoid enemies (i.e=
...,
running)?
=3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Is running from enemies catabolic or anabo=
lic?
=3DA0 =3DA0 It could be for navigation during a seasonal migration.
=3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Is seasonal migration catabolic or anaboli=
c?
And metabolism is catabolic and anabolic - sometimes in tandem, a lot
of the times not in tandem.
Specifically
I suggest that catabolic breakdown has evolved to all ways an organism
breaks down - PROTECTION
You have not explained why protection is breaking down. Explain[/quote]
what is broken down when one animal protects another.
[quote]I suggest that anabolic build up has evolved to all ways an organism
builds up - NURTURE
Explain what is built up when one animal nurtures another.
How come imagining mythical dragons, and flying horses is easy but
imagining
life evolving from catabolic/ and anabolic processes is impossible?
I don't know if dragons and flying horses exist or ever exist.[/quote]
However, these concepts are concrete rather than abstract. One can
draw a picture of a dragon or flying horse without believing in them.
I can look at a picture of a rock, and say it is not a dragon.
Natural selection is a little more abstract. However, I can draw
pictures of animals cooperating or competing. I can draw graphs and
write equations describing how populations grow or shrink.
You are saying "it is clear to me." You are not pointing at any
picture showing how a catabolic reaction protects more than it
nurtures. Your abstraction is not rooted in concrete concepts.
[quote]
They are chemical terms that have direct connection with the
biochemistry of the cell. However, higher orders of organization
aren't really classifiable in terms of anabolic and catabolic.
You are saying that like it has been proved? =A0Please show me where.
That is an assumption - a wrong assumption, a wrong assumption that no
one before now
has tested. =A0Don't make up stuff and say its the law.
I am not saying you can't conjecture.
We, humans have a psychology to not change, and oppose what's new.
Granted - but it's time to overcome that when you see the evidence.
Which I don't see.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 29, 2009 5:12 am
|
|