 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Bio Evolution Forum » The Motor for Evolution... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Tim Tyler... |
 Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Hasenkam wrote:
[quote:5a525de93a]You might want to also look up "constructal theory". These bods go even
further, arguing against Gould, that if evolution started all over again,
the direction and speciation may have been remarkably similiar.
[/quote:5a525de93a]
It looks like a failed attempt at the maximum entropy principle to me.
For evolution's direction, see:
EVOLUTION'S ARROW, by John Stewart
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/jes999/
NONZERO, by Robert Wright
http://www.nonzero.org/
The Evolution of God, by Robert Wright
http://evolutionofgod.net/
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim at (no spam) tt1lock.org Remove lock to
reply. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Hendricks... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
There is also this. Virtually EVERY mutation is on one side or the
other -
it's either a catabolic change or an anabolic change. That means that
every
mutation is a two for one, a two-fer.
The original mutation is on one side, the other must now match it.
If the original mutation is a catabolic change, the anabolic side has
selection pressure to match it.
You have two changes for one mutation.
If the original mutation is an anabolic change, the catabolic side has
selection pressure to match it.
You have two changes for one mutation,.
That suggests that EVERY mutation that is a good one, is ultimately
responsible for two improvements,
1. the original mutation,
2. the catch up change on the other side of the anabolic catabolic
split. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Anthony Campbell... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-09-29, John Hasenkam <johnh at (no spam) goawayplease.com> wrote:
[quote:65663f2542]Thanks Anthony,
I still haven't finished it so I appreciate the forewarning. The theistic
theme isn't obvious in the early chapters but he does play on the
incredulility factor somewhat. Perhaps his goal was to prime his readers.
John.
[/quote:65663f2542]
I think so. Mind you, the title of Chapter 11 (Towards a theology of
evolution?) is a bit of a give-away!
Anthony
--
Anthony Campbell - ac at (no spam) acampbell.org.uk
Microsoft-free zone - Using Debian GNU/Linux
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews,
and sceptical articles) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Hendricks... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 29, 11:15=A0am, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
[quote:7afb9cace7]There is also this. =A0Virtually EVERY mutation is on one side or the
other -
it's either a catabolic change or an anabolic change. That means that
every
mutation is a two for one, a two-fer.
The original mutation is on one side, the other must now match it.
If the original mutation is a catabolic change, the anabolic side has
selection pressure to match it.
You have two changes for one mutation.
If the original mutation is an anabolic change, the catabolic side has
selection pressure to match it.
You have two changes for one mutation,.
That suggests that EVERY mutation that is a good one, is ultimately
responsible for two improvements,
1. the original mutation,
2. the catch up change on the other side of the anabolic catabolic
split.
[/quote:7afb9cace7]
This suggested something else. The 2nd 'mutation' is mostly free of
harm -
unlike the first mutation that was random. The 2nd mutation - the one
to match the first, is not dependent on the environment mutation
forces, those outside the organism.
It 's selection pressure comes from within the organism.
Instead of random tampering with the genome in hopes of something
good,
we have a selection pressure FOR something specific.
That being in our example, for the buildup of the catabolic side, to
fit the
first mutation on the anabolic side.
To improve the catabolic side, to match the anabolic, would be an
advantage,
but there is not the danger that a random mutation from outside the
organism, would give.
We now have a two-fer improvement with the 2nd 'mutation' or change,
being less dangerous than the first. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Darwin123... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 29, 12:15=A0pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
[quote:bf2974d1a2]Here's how I think it would work.
Catabolic biochemistry and anabolic biochemistry are separate but work
together.
Let us choose a specific example. The mitochondria are organelles[/quote:bf2974d1a2]
that produce catabolic reactions (respiration), and the ribosomes
produce anabolic reactions (protein synthesis). Or maybe:
Mitochondria are still the catabolic organelles. They break down
glucose molecules to form carbon dioxide and water. Choose
chloroplasts as the anabolic partner. After all, chloroplasts do the
exact opposite of mitochondria. In the organisms that have them
(plants), the chloroplasts build up glucose molecules using carbon
dioxide and water.
[quote:bf2974d1a2]See the post about specific first examples.
Anything wrong with my examples?
Let's say that a mutation happens on the anabolic side that improves
the anabolic biochemistry in the species.
Okay. The mutation makes a new type of chlorophyll that absorbs[/quote:bf2974d1a2]
longer wavelengths of light. It is an improvement for this plant
because the plant is in a deeper body of water than its parents. If
the parents hadn't moved, the old chloroplast would work just as well.
However, this is a new environment and a new chloroplast works better.
Similarly, the mutation can produce a new ribosome comes that
wroks at higher salinity than the old ribosome. This can only be an
improvement if the environment has changed to more salinity. However,
in the mutation is an improvement on the anabolic side.
[quote:bf2974d1a2]And it is selected due to natural selection.
The improved selection comes about because of some change in[/quote:bf2974d1a2]
environment. Otherwise, it isn't an improvement. Selection is context
driven. But okay. I accept that the mutation raises the fitness value
of an anabolic reaction.
[quote:bf2974d1a2]
Yet we have a catabolic system that is still the old way. =A0And still
both have to work in tandem though separate.
Why?[/quote:bf2974d1a2]
As an example, consider the mitochondria. The mitochondria can
function just the same way even if the chloroplast, or ribosome,
changes. What chemical mechanism ensures that the mitochondria must
balance the change in the chloroplast? The chloroplast or the ribosome
may be producing the same amount of product in the new environment.
[quote:bf2974d1a2]Now there is selection pressure for the catabolic system to catch up
and match the new and improved =A0anabolic system.
Why?
The single mutation on one side , pressures the other side to catch
up.
Why?[/quote:bf2974d1a2]
Just because to chemical reactions have an opposite definition
doesn't mean they have to be in balance. Furthermore, suppose they
have to be in balance. There is no assurance that the mutation has to
change the amount of product. The change in environment that changed
the fitness will independently affect the amount of product involved.
The words sound nice. However, I see no compelling reason
that changes in anabolic reactions have to "catch up" with changes in
the catabolic.
Choose a specific system. Two organelles doing two different
functions. Or, if you like, use a larger system. Digestion versus
muscle formation. Anything. Why does a mutation in one system
encourage the survival of another mutation in the other system? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Hendricks... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 6:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 4, 1:06=A0pm, Darwin123 <drosen0... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:a956e67441]On Sep 29, 12:15=3DA0pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
Here's how I think it would work.
Catabolic biochemistry and anabolic biochemistry are separate but work
together.
=A0 =A0 =A0Let us choose a specific example. The mitochondria are organel=
les
that produce catabolic reactions (respiration), and the ribosomes
produce anabolic reactions (protein synthesis). Or maybe:
=A0 =A0 =A0Mitochondria are still the catabolic organelles. They break do=
wn
glucose molecules to form carbon dioxide and water. Choose
chloroplasts as the anabolic partner. After all, chloroplasts do the
exact opposite of mitochondria. In the organisms that have them
(plants), the chloroplasts build up glucose molecules using carbon
dioxide and water.> See the post about specific first examples.
=A0 =A0 Anything wrong with my examples?
Let's say that a mutation happens on the anabolic side that improves
the anabolic biochemistry in the species.
=A0 =A0 =A0Okay. The mutation makes a new type of chlorophyll that absorb=
s
longer wavelengths of light. It is an improvement for this plant
because the plant is in a deeper body of water than its parents. If
the parents hadn't moved, the old chloroplast would work just as well.
However, this is a new environment and a new chloroplast works better.
=A0 =A0 =A0Similarly, the mutation can produce a new ribosome comes that
wroks at higher salinity than the old ribosome. This can only be an
improvement if the environment has changed to more salinity. However,
in the mutation is an improvement on the anabolic side.> And it is select=
ed due to natural selection.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The improved selection comes about because of some change =
in
environment. Otherwise, it isn't an improvement. Selection is context
driven. But okay. I accept that the mutation raises the fitness value
of an anabolic reaction.
Yet we have a catabolic system that is still the old way. =3DA0And stil=
l
both have to work in tandem though separate.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Why?
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0As an example, consider the mitochondria. The mitochondria=
can
function just the same way even if the chloroplast, or ribosome,
changes. What chemical mechanism ensures that the mitochondria must
balance the change in the chloroplast? The chloroplast or the ribosome
may be producing the same amount of product in the new environment.> Now =
there is selection pressure for the catabolic system to catch up
and match the new and improved =3DA0anabolic system.
=A0 =A0 =A0 Why?
The single mutation on one side , pressures the other side to catch
up.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Why?
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Just because to chemical reactions have an opposite defini=
tion
doesn't mean they have to be in balance. Furthermore, suppose they
have to be in balance. There is no assurance that the mutation has to
change the amount of product. The change in environment that changed
the fitness will independently affect the amount of product involved.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The words sound nice. However, I see no compelling rea=
son
that changes in anabolic reactions have to "catch up" with changes in
the catabolic.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Choose a specific system. Two organelles doing two differe=
nt
functions. Or, if you like, use a larger system. Digestion versus
muscle formation. Anything. Why does a mutation in one system
encourage the survival of another mutation in the other system?
[/quote:a956e67441]
There is something else in your questions that is worth noting.
You suggest that a change on one side does not necessarily demand
a change on the other to function well.
That would support the idea that some species may well evolve
stronger catabolic sides, or stronger anabolic sides without affecting
the other side.
Do you remember my first post that listed such divisions.
Male/female, plants/animals, etc.
We have two things then:
1. The motor for change - one side brings pressure on the other to
catch up.
2. No or little pressure - one side evolves separately and leads the
species to be
more catabolic overall (or vice versa). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Hendricks... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 6:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 4, 1:06=A0pm, Darwin123 <drosen0... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:523bfb03db]On Sep 29, 12:15=3DA0pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
Here's how I think it would work.
Catabolic biochemistry and anabolic biochemistry are separate but work
together.
=A0 =A0 =A0Let us choose a specific example. The mitochondria are organel=
les
that produce catabolic reactions (respiration), and the ribosomes
produce anabolic reactions (protein synthesis). Or maybe:
=A0 =A0 =A0Mitochondria are still the catabolic organelles. They break do=
wn
glucose molecules to form carbon dioxide and water. Choose
chloroplasts as the anabolic partner. After all, chloroplasts do the
exact opposite of mitochondria. In the organisms that have them
(plants), the chloroplasts build up glucose molecules using carbon
dioxide and water.> See the post about specific first examples.
=A0 =A0 Anything wrong with my examples?
Let's say that a mutation happens on the anabolic side that improves
the anabolic biochemistry in the species.
=A0 =A0 =A0Okay. The mutation makes a new type of chlorophyll that absorb=
s
longer wavelengths of light. It is an improvement for this plant
because the plant is in a deeper body of water than its parents. If
the parents hadn't moved, the old chloroplast would work just as well.
However, this is a new environment and a new chloroplast works better.
=A0 =A0 =A0Similarly, the mutation can produce a new ribosome comes that
wroks at higher salinity than the old ribosome. This can only be an
improvement if the environment has changed to more salinity. However,
in the mutation is an improvement on the anabolic side.> And it is select=
ed due to natural selection.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The improved selection comes about because of some change =
in
environment. Otherwise, it isn't an improvement. Selection is context
driven. But okay. I accept that the mutation raises the fitness value
of an anabolic reaction.
Yet we have a catabolic system that is still the old way. =3DA0And stil=
l
both have to work in tandem though separate.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Why?
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0As an example, consider the mitochondria. The mitochondria=
can
function just the same way even if the chloroplast, or ribosome,
changes. What chemical mechanism ensures that the mitochondria must
balance the change in the chloroplast? The chloroplast or the ribosome
may be producing the same amount of product in the new environment.> Now =
there is selection pressure for the catabolic system to catch up
and match the new and improved =3DA0anabolic system.
=A0 =A0 =A0 Why?
The single mutation on one side , pressures the other side to catch
up.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Why?
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Just because to chemical reactions have an opposite defini=
tion
doesn't mean they have to be in balance. Furthermore, suppose they
have to be in balance. There is no assurance that the mutation has to
change the amount of product. The change in environment that changed
the fitness will independently affect the amount of product involved.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0The words sound nice. However, I see no compelling rea=
son
that changes in anabolic reactions have to "catch up" with changes in
the catabolic.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Choose a specific system. Two organelles doing two differe=
nt
functions. Or, if you like, use a larger system. Digestion versus
muscle formation. Anything. Why does a mutation in one system
encourage the survival of another mutation in the other system?
[/quote:523bfb03db]
See my example post. You are right that being separate, there may not
be that much selective pressure on the follow up side in every case.
Granted.
You mention mitochondria. Yet the beginning of catabolic mitochondria
started
the eukaryotic development on the anabolic side.
The endosymbiosis was a vast change and an excellent example to show
my
point. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Darwin123... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 5, 12:10=A0pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
[quote:ab78375db6]On Oct 4, 1:06=3DA0pm, Darwin123 <drosen0... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 29, 12:15=3D3DA0pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
You mention mitochondria. Yet the beginning of catabolic mitochondria
started
the eukaryotic development on the anabolic side.
So did the beginning of mitochondria represent bacterial[/quote:ab78375db6]
development on the catabolic side?
Bacteria survive without mitochondria. Inside one bacterial cell,
both anabolic and catabolic reactions occur. Do these bacteria sleep?
What is their REM and nREM stages of sleep like?
The mitochondria supposedly evolved from photosynthetic bacteria
that lived inside a host bacteria. Mitochondria don't perform
photosynthesis. So it seems to me that the mitochondrial bacteria lost
some ability to support catabolic reactions.
The host bacteria, which I will call the protonucleus, probably
had some ability to anaerobic respiration. I think eukaryotes
currently still have the ability to perform anaerobic respiration.
Like yeast, which can get energy both aerobically and anaerobically.
So in terms of yeast: I don't see that the changes in catabolic
and anabolic reactions really mirrored each other. The mitochondrial
bacteria in the yeast lost their ability to photosynthesize, while the
yeast still kept its ability to burn sugar without oxygen.
Lets all drink to that!
[quote:ab78375db6]The =A0endosymbiosis was a vast =A0change and an excellent example to sho=
w
my
point.[/quote:ab78375db6] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:10 am
|
|