What is Digg?93 Comments
- G0dspeed, on 11/12/2008, -1/+67The article lost some credibility when they said "What they are saying is that evolution is not entirely random, as Darwin believed." Evolution is definitely not random, only mutations are.
"They discovered that the proteins were correcting any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations, constantly restoring the chain to working order."
Cells already have the ability to respond to environmental stress. Are they saying that these proteins actually induce mutations in the genome? And even if they do, these mutations need to occur in germ cells. What they are talking about sounds a lot like Lamarckian evolution (unless, I misinterpreted) - the giraffe can't reach the leaves at the top, so artificial mutations is induced to solve the problem, their necks are longer now, hence they evolved longer necks.
Finally, they said evolution is steering towards greater sophistication and complexity. WRONG. evolution is not really goal-oriented.
On the whole, the article makes little sense, or maybe I am too stupid to understand it. - Ligeia, on 11/12/2008, -0/+24I don't think you're stupid....I think it's a bad article, with a poor understanding of evolution. There's no "steering" here, only existence.
- thumbkin, on 11/12/2008, -1/+23http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/60/ ...
You should read the source article, its actually a lot better and explaining. - bluesyncopate, on 11/12/2008, -0/+18> The discovery answers an age-old question that has puzzled biologists since the time of Darwin: How can
> organisms be so exquisitely complex, if evolution is completely random, operating like a 'blind watchmaker'?
This has not puzzled scientists. It has puzzled people who do not understand how Natural Selection operates.
For the millionth (but certainly not last) time, natural selection is NOT a random process. As stated elsewhere, multifariously in fact, mutations are random, but the SURVIVAL of a mutation is exactly the opposite. The biggest hurdle to understanding natural selection is understanding just what VAST amounts of time are needed in order for even small mutations to cause a change in behavior or physiology in a species. As humans with a relatively short lifespan, it's difficult to wrap our minds around such large expanses of time.
Scientists (and rational thinkers everywhere) revel in discoveries which explode our notions of cosmology or biology. The more ignorant we are, the more potential for new understanding is revealed. But the absense of understanding does not, as Dawkins himself states, "fill the gap with God." - brstilson, on 11/12/2008, -0/+13"Evolutionary changes are supposed to take place gradually and randomly, under pressure from natural selection."
No, they're not. They happen at different speeds due to different factors and usually happens when one group of organisms is isolated from the main body. Not even Darwin supposed that evolution would happen at a constant, slow rate. Overall, it is gradual and slow, but individual changes happen in different periods of time. - MeatMountain, on 11/12/2008, -0/+12That's a crappy superpower.
- GunOfSod, on 11/12/2008, -1/+11I think Dawkins would be very happy with any new information regarding evolution, as long as it is supported by the evidence. You see the difference between rationalism and faith is that the rationalist is not tied to any dogma, and is quite happy to change their viewpoint should the evidence show otherwise.
I am not sure about this article, AFAIK Biologists have not believed evolution is a random process for a very long time. Its simple, Evolution is the by product of natural selection, and natural selection is not a random process. - Iwantawii, on 11/12/2008, -0/+9I wonder which Heroes character I would like to do...
...Claire. - GSnake, on 11/12/2008, -0/+9and god put you here to test our patience ...
- jehan60188, on 11/12/2008, -1/+10first one, then the other
- GunOfSod, on 11/12/2008, -0/+7 actually I'd trust this guy:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/predict ... - bipolarruledout, on 11/12/2008, -4/+11Where's your god now?
- ginestony, on 11/12/2008, -1/+8you fail at spelling
- DCGUY12, on 11/12/2008, -0/+6Dawkins welcomes all evolutionary evidence, and this isn't really anything to do with "religion" at all....it's more like "hacking" DNA, which is kind of cool don't you think?
- latexsolarbeef, on 11/12/2008, -2/+8I've got a group of proteins you can investigate
/penis - PeeEqualsNP, on 11/12/2008, -0/+5Wrong logic. You need to at least change your wording. "...giraffes have long necks...because...mating requires males to bash their heads into other males...longer necks= more bashing force"
The wrong wording here is "because". This a *very* common misconception about evolution and evolutionary processes. Evolution basically has two mechanisms at work, changes (mutations) and the processes (as part of the environment) that act on the organisms. Natural selection is one of those processes.
Mutations are random (This article is claiming to evidence that this may not be true, but for now, mutations are random). The processes are somewhat if not entirely predictable but they DO NOT *cause* mutations. Therefore, the giraffe did not develop a longer neck *because* it was a benefit... The longer neck was a random mutation and then natural selection acted upon that mutation and it turned out to be a benefit which, through other processes (genetic drift and flow), became a common genetic expression and a new species eventually came around that had longer necks. - hantata, on 11/12/2008, -7/+12I wonder which Heros character I would like to be...
- h0ly, on 11/12/2008, -0/+4Fits with your nickname
- JoeParanoid, on 11/12/2008, -1/+5In reality, the Pentagon will use it to make super soldiers, corporations will use it to make workers grow extra arms and the government will use it to make the populace more docile.
- defectDS, on 11/12/2008, -0/+4No Mohinder, no!
- qazxsw2, on 11/12/2008, -0/+4doesn't make sense to me ...
the main Princeton article suggests says that control systems have evolved (obvious) - but it does not report anything that suggests the evolutionary process is controlled ... - oblique63, on 11/12/2008, -0/+3he said 'god,' not Xenu...
everyone knows he's just an evil super intergalactic overlord... psh - PrintScrn12, on 11/12/2008, -0/+3Big claims the like of which are often shown false, without a published paper, without clear explanations. Researcher himself does not understand evolution by claiming:
"The discovery answers an age-old question that has puzzled biologists since the time of Darwin: How can organisms be so exquisitely complex, if evolution is completely random, operating like a 'blind watchmaker'?" said Chakrabarti
Evolution are not random, due to the process of selection. Mutations themselves are random. This is not an age-old question puzzling biologists, including Darwin.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/predict ... - eir574, on 11/13/2008, -1/+4It must be difficult to be so incredibly persecuted. It must be tough to know that you can be fired from a job just for being Christian and that some states are considering constitutional amendments to prevent you from getting married. I'm sure it also stings a bit when people talk about how you have absolutely no morals and only do what feels good in the moment, or when they say that you're more likely than the average person to molest children.
Or, wait. Maybe you're just upset because people aren't respecting your beliefs. I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but I don't see why I can't question or even disrespect your beliefs. I don't have to think that your belief in your god is at all reasonable in order to respect your right to believe in him. - tallguyg, on 11/12/2008, -1/+4midichlorians, is that you?
- G0dspeed, on 11/12/2008, -0/+3That was my point exactly - that the cell already "fixes" errors, that's why we have such a low mutation rate than expected during replication and other processes.
But now that I read what they said again, I think I understand what they are saying. If there is a problem, then the proteins correct this problem by inducing artificial mutation that fixes the problem. Once again, this seems very confusing because how can the protein know which mutation will be beneficial, not only that but it supposedly "knows" which mutation will fix the problem. It sounds like the proteins have consciousness, or maybe it seems like they are because we are not used to proteins working this way.
Also, I don't think you have the chicken and egg scenario because they didn't say evolution is determined by the protein. It's just that it might help some species "evolve better." - coyote1284, on 11/12/2008, -0/+3"Praise Ford, I'm a Beta!"
- BoneheadFarker, on 11/12/2008, -0/+3Actually, people into BDSM *like* pain. They would hate that ability.
- nesibus, on 11/12/2008, -1/+3More highly evolved and not on this planet.
- WhiskeyLemur, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2It's not really Lamarckian - I would say it's almost closer to the outdated idea of evolution working "for the good of the species." Evolutionary selection takes place, first and foremost, on the level of the gene, FOR THE BENEFIT OF each invidividual gene: a gene which has a better survival chance for any given environment (and that environment includes other genes, don't forget) will propagate in the gene pool - and vice versa. Any apparent cooperation takes place ONLY because such cooperation increases the chances of each individual gene. The very idea of a gene being "for" mutation is nebulous to begin with, but I can't think of a way in which it would actually be a successful gene.
What is a gene "for" mutation? Does it mutate on its own? In that case it is an UNsuccessful gene to begin with because it has low "copying fidelity" (Dawkins' term - look it up if it's not self-explanatory). Its offspring, to to speak, will not be the same gene as the parent, and will end up doing different things than the parent because of it - so, evolutionary fail right there.
The other option is that a gene "for" mutation is actually a mutagen - a gene which causes *other* neighboring genes to mutate. But in that case it will cause random and rapid changes in its immediate environment (other genes), thus making it more difficult for itself to succeed. Again, fail.
The only other thing that comes to mind is that these genes somehow direct the type of mutation which takes place, but if it is done in a controlled and consistent manner, I would call it a phenotype (or perhaps even an extended phenotype) rather than a true mutation.
Interesting article, I'd love to see more original research.... But as it was presented here, it is nonsensical. - Hetman, on 11/12/2008, -1/+3This is not a really good article. Anyways just because evolution happens that does not mean their is not a god, and it does not mean their is a God. II am an anti-theist. The dogma of religion is just insane to me. But you are really not helping anyone by making an illogical statement like Where's your God now.
- G0dspeed, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2Exactly. The article is poorly-written, there are so many misconceptions. It really distracts you from the actual research paper, which is kinda interesting.
- yougene, on 11/13/2008, -0/+2^Good post
>>The sperm knows to travel to the egg, but how? Is this a property of the egg or of the sperm or of the path the sperm travels?
The typical systems view response is that it's the sum whole of these components which give rise to the process. There's essentially an organizing "field" of which all these components are but parts. The egg, the sperm, its environment are one thing as well as their underlying components.
Think of the atomic model. What gives rise to the shape of an electron orbital. The nucleus? The electrons? It's neither one of these individually. Out of the individual part interactions, arises a cohesive whole with new properties. This no longer a sum of parts, but by all definitions a new whole with its own capacity for autonomy.
This is a typical structural isomorphism of systemic structures.
>>That being said, I would not agree that evolution is evolving itself into a more complex system that carries with it less random mutations.
Oh no doubt about it. But the point is, this random mutation is happening within the context of a larger system whole. The whole has top-down causation with any given part, as much as any single part has down-up causation with the whole. - Medicamusic, on 11/12/2008, -1/+3one other little known reason giraffes have long necks is because part of mating requires males to bash their heads into other males, like a hammer, in attempt to impress females.
longer necks= more bashing force.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zKaLyUudk - OfficialJoe, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2So where is their FSM now is a no go?
/oh my sack, a question within a question..how Sierpinski of me! - yougene, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2>>Finally, they said evolution is steering towards greater sophistication and complexity. WRONG. evolution is not really goal-oriented.
As soon as one takes a systems view of evolution a directionality towards increasing levels of organization is hard to ignore. That is a definitive characteristic of systems level analysis. New structures EMERGE and they do so following general patterns. Specifically, there is a cumulation of levels of complexity. A hierarchic structure where one level serves as the foundation of another, which in itself is the foundation of another.
It's a universal pattern of anything that can be viewed from the lense of being a system. Think computers for example. There is the binary language level where the basic functions of the computer hardware are managed. This level is encapsulated by an assembler level, which is encapsulated by a higher language level, and so on.
Or just the biological example. molecules encapsulate atoms, prokaryotic cells encapsulate molecules, prokaryotic cells are encapsulated by eukaryotic cells, multi-cellular organisms encapsulate single eukaryotic cells. Defined broadly enough there is a definite directionality in evolution. Specifically stages of differentiating components, and integrating them into larger wholes.
That's the implication here. Biological evolution may have started out as only random mutations of DNA. But eventually a new level of complexity evolved on top of this foundation. Random mutation is still there, but it is regulated by a higher level of complexity.
The idea that DNA is a complex system isn't a new one. - JeTeeter, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2The electron transport chain which they were studying is located inside mitochondria. Mutations in mitochondria don't really have a way to effect other parts of the organism, unless they don't work, in which case the cell dies... So they found a protein that still works even whey they mutate it and ***** it up? So what? That's called built in redundancy so that if one part is messed with the whole can still function. Natural selection still applies because the mutation would either make the ETC more efficient or less efficient, and the cell with the best efficiency wins.
So far I'm not impressed. - yisforyeti, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2It's not really funny anymore. Try to find something more thoughtful and constructive to say, for our sakes?
- AntifruStration, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2interesting artcle
- SamCanDigg, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2As an anthropologist I should say that there is not enough info in this post to understand the research that was done. I sincerely hope, however, that the author of the post grossly misrepresented the actual views and findings of the researchers but none of it made any sense. If not, then I really wish people who don't study evolution would stop relating their discoveries to evolution because they don't know what they're talking about.
- bobjrn2, on 11/12/2008, -0/+2you read my mind
- karmabandit, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1Ok, I'll bite. I have two problems with your comment:
1) So, a mutation doesn't last long because of predators or disease? Guess what that sounds like? Evolution! If those predators specifically ate creates with this mutation, then it was "selected against". But, this is probably not what you meant. You probably meant that over time, any particular mutation will be lost just as randomly as it came.
2) So, any particular mutation will be lost just as randomly as it came, and therefore it can't last long enough? First of all, this might not actually be true, since you'll quickly have a lot of children running around with this mutation, so if it doesn't get lost quickly, it gets harder and harder to do so. But even if it were true, so what? Any given *single* mutation can get lost, and nobody will care. As long as some still survive, even a vast vast minority, a species will have some genetic diversity, and that's enough for natural selection to take hold! - NarcisseDeD, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1He's washing the dishes.
- ophello, on 11/12/2008, -0/+1Is there still a gap between brain size in our fossil record?
- Cerebron, on 11/13/2008, -0/+11) Predators, disease, and death in general isn't selective, and one single mutation won't often change enough to alter anything. Plus, this article suggests that each organism has specific mechanisms in place to correct these mutations as they occur.
2) Why would this mutation be passed on to offspring? The odds of meeting a partner that allows the mutation to be passed on is slim enough, and now the presence of this protein may fight the mutation in the young.
My point is whatever mechanism prevents harmful radical mutations from being passed on, might also keep 'beneficial' radical ones from being passed on as well. 'Vast amounts of time' is just not a good argument. - NarcisseDeD, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1Each time I'll read somewhere that Evolution is "completely random" or have to to with "chance", I'll kill a monkey.
- 4321234, on 11/12/2008, -1/+2All that head bashing and reaching for the tasty bits of trees might stimulate some protein to tell the dna stuff to try out a longer neck mutation. Then the natural selection part gives a thumbs up, and presto, you got a ticket on Noah's Ark.
- NarcisseDeD, on 11/13/2008, -0/+1It's just a payback for all the past times where it was not socially acceptable.
Because the oppressor became the oppressed.
And a lot of people are making fun of gays, I can tell.
Oh, and by the way, this submission have no purpose, it just happens to be that way... - 4321234, on 11/12/2008, -0/+1The thumbnail seems to suggest that the 5th Beatle was a chimp.
-
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is