FreeThinker

Hey all,

I am considering putting together a web based project which will list all the fossils we have currently discovered in the order they appear on the evolutionary tree of life.

Anyone have any ideas where I could start gathering this information (pictures)? Is there such a project already?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

FreeThinker

I remember that Richard Dawkins designed a program where you can observe shapes evolve into something resembling creatures/objects. It is not really A.I based, but interesting nonetheless. I don’t know the URL, and will Google it later. I think the program was called either "bimorphs" or " The blind watchmaker".

Artificial consciousness/intelligence

Artificial Intelligence is a field of science that is focused on creating machines that humans consider intelligent. But just what is intelligence? The present day computer is able to exchange data, learn of other computers, do extremely fast calculations and other functions which we might be consider intelligent. However, this is not sufficient. For a computer to be truly intelligent, in the human sense of the word, it will need to be self aware, conscious. I will argue that conscious is not a “thing” but a process of the brain, and that extreme complexity leads to consciousness. I will attempt to show that animals have a degree of self consciousness and that it is not entirely a human experience. I will show that currently our Artificial Intelligence is at the level of some animals and that continues progress in this direction will eventually lead to human type consciousness in computers.

Since beginning of time human being have attempted to copy nature. Our progress in science continues to amaze us, and what seems improbable today, becomes possible tomorrow. As a species we are often sceptical about our ability to understand, and manipulate, the world around us. Imagine being a caveman and being shown the camera. Imagine being your great grandfather and being shown the mobile phone. Now imagine a self learning, conscious, machine.

What is consciousness?

When Hydrogen, Oxygen and Carbon are combined into a particular formation they form sugar, sugar has a sweet flavour. However, we can not attribute that flavour to any of the three atoms; it is the result of the combination. The same principle applies to conciseness; it is not the effect of a single component of the brain, it is the result of an extremely complex combination of components and the chemical reactions that happen within the brain.

Brain is a complex machine, unimaginably complex. The brain is made up of around a 100 billion nerve cells - same as the number of trees in the Amazon rainforest. Each one of those cells is connected to 10,000 others. The total number of connection in a human brain is 1000 trillion- same as the number of leaves in the entire Amazon.

How do we know that by copying the complexity of the human brain, that computers will become conciseness? Is there a soul or is consciousness just part of the brain process? Through the evidence of Altering Conciseness and the Conciseness of Animals I will argue that consciousness is the outcome of extreme complexity, and that the different levels of consciousness are relative to brain complexity.

Altering Conciseness

By taking drugs we alter our consciousness. We can compare this to the car engine. When all the engine components (brain) are in working condition the car moves ( consciousness). The actually movement of the car can not be attributed to any special part of the engine; it is the result of the combination of parts. Now if we take out the air filter, the car performance (consciousness) will be altered. When we take drugs we alter our consciousness, the same way that taking out the air filter alters the performance of the car.

Phineas Cage was a foreman of a railway construction company. He was a young, kind and responsible man. One day at work a crowbar sized metal rod passed through his cheek through his brain. Remarkably he survived. After he recovered from the accident, Phineas changed from the kind young man to a foul mouthed, rude outcast. His co- workers said that he wasn’t the same person anymore, literally.

The Cage incident shows that consciousness is a function of the brain, and that damage to the brain can cause a shift of consciousness. If consciousness was the result of a “soul” or an “external” force, we shouldn’t expect brain damage to have any impact on consciousness.

Conciseness of Animals

Observing consciousness in other species is a difficult task. We have a hard time defining the consciousness of other people, yet alone animals. Even so, cases of animals showing signs of consciousness have been observed in the wild and I will show two examples:

Baboons will respond and interact with other baboons according to their hierarchy. This tells us that the baboon is at some level self aware of his position within the group.

A more striking example has been observed in chimpanzees. An experiment was conducted where one chimp knew the location of food. Another chimp would follow the knowledgeable chimp sensing that he knew something that he didn’t. The knowledgeable Chimp would purposely try and deceive the following chimp by leading the follower to areas where there was no food.

The two examples show that the subjects were, at least, partially concessus. To be able to discriminate and lie is the indication that in both examples the animal was aware of its actions. Animals probably don’t have the sort of self awareness as humans, but that is probably due to the size of our brains and the invention of sophisticated language.

Current Artificial Intelligence

At present our computers have speed, but show no signs of intelligence. In fact, our present computers are outsmarted by the common earthworm. But our technology is still extremely primitive. Nature took more than a billion years to develop bacteria; it took humans less than 60 to create the artificial equivalents. According to Moors Law the speed and complexity of computers will double every eighteen months, but this obviously can not continue indefinitely. Many people think that computers can never be as intelligent as humans. But if complex order of organic molecules can operate in humans to produce consciousness, why shouldn’t equally complex electronic circuits make computers equally intelligent?

Conclusion

We underestimate the future because we overestimate the present. When the Wright brothers flew for 12 seconds, no one could predict that one day we would fly over the ocean in a couple of hours. The invention of the first wheel, around 5 thousand year ago, was the foundation of the present day car, yet we could forgive the inventor for not predicting it. The telegraph was the ancestor of the mobile phone and our current computer technology is the foundation for the development of artificial intelligence.

To get our technology to the level of the human brain we can not start from the top. You don’t build a house from top down, you build the foundation first. If currently our A.I is at the level of bacteria, our next aim should be to try and replicate the brain of a worm. The important point is that we have the foundation. Will computers ever become conscious? It is not a question of “if”, it’s a question of “when”.

Well, I enjoy science books ( Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould), but when Sci-Fi is concerned who can go past the legend, Isaac Asimov!

Mokele,

the organism is the bit that lives or dies, mates or winds up alone, that's the level where selection (the events that kill or sterilize organisms, preventing geneflow) occurs.”

How do you explain the fact that mothers are willing to die for their offspring? If it was really down to the organism, it would value its own life more than anyone else’s. Sure the organism lives and dies, but only by what the genes programmed it to do. If a gazelle is eaten by a lion, it is the genes that are responsible. I think we both agree with that. The reason is that genes in that particular gazelle weren’t as good at cooperating with each other, as they are in other gazelles. Just say in the population of gazelles a gene exists that will give them better hearing than other gazelles. Now when the lion approaches this gazelle escapes, it lives! Did the gene for better hearing save the gazelles life?

Let's go back to the team analogy. Selection occuring at the gene level would be like the individual players winning the game, regardless of team, based on some criterion. Selection occuring at the organism level is analagous to the team winning or losing.

This happen often. Often a player will play a great game, and lead the team through. Marradons goal against England in the 1966 World Cup is a great example. He single handedly got them through that game. These days that Argentinean team is hardly remembered, but Maradonna is treated like a god. This analogy could represent the organisms (Argentina) who died off in the past, and the good surviving genes ( Maradonna). I should note Maradonna has retired in 94, but that doesn’t metter for the sake of this discussion.

This, I feel, underscores my assertion that selection occurs mostly at the level of the short lived organism compared to the long-lived gene. Any allele that would allow great success in surviving asteroid strikes, faced with an allele that would not allow such sucess but would allow a doubling of the number of offspring, would quickly be outcompeted and vanish, in spite of this being to the long term detriment of the species and all associated genes. Because genes/alleles persist for so long (your example from eye development, for instance), such a short-sightedness in evolution can only be explained by selection at the level of short-lived units, namely organisms.”

But even organisms that were better at reproducing, would spread over organisms that were capable of surviving the asteroid strike. We can not judge neither the organisms nor the genes with future environmental conditions. Genes, and organisms, are best suited “ right here , right now” and if there was a sudden change in environment, the organisms that carry the best genes for surviving in that environment would benefit.

FreeThinker

I think it would be very interesting to conduct a "predator" vs. "pray" experiment; in fact I have been considering it myself. However, I also can not decided the test subjects.

Which animals (besides bacteria) have the shortest generation span?

I was thinking about placing fruit flies (a lot of them) into an environment with spiders. I am not really sure if this will produce any worth while mutations. But, I figure, the spider will eat the least adapted (slowest, insufficient sight…) flies. So if I could even differentiate between the "fit" and non "fit" flies, I would observe evolution.

Since mutations happen randomly it is in theory possible to observe some mutations in the flies. My goal would be to get some valuable mutations. Don’t know if this is realistic, but I wouldn’t mind trying it anyways.

It would be good to use a species of spider with a short generation span. Anyone have any suggestions for possible test subjects?

Doesn't selection act on even "higher" levels? Wouldn't dinosaurs dying out because they all had similar physical characteristics be an example?

What is the cause of the similar physical characteristics? It is the genes, the architects, that are put through the test. This reinforces my point: the genes that were unable to cope with the change of conditions faced the same outcome, in this case extinction. If the dinosaurs were better designed (by the genes) to cope with the conditions (like the mammals and other surviving species) they would not have died out.

Mokele,

I agree with you that evolution occurs on three different levels: the species, the individual and the genes. The question is: what is the primary unit of natural selection (PUNS)? The individuals of the species compete against each other (for food, mates, territory…). Each individual organism will do what is best for himself, and his genes (siblings, children and to some extent cousins). The individual organisms obviously have more impact on natural selection than the whole species and seem like a good candidate for being the PUNS. However, the individual can also be subdivided, into genes. A particular gene doesn’t just inhabit one organism; it is spread throughout the whole planet, depending on how successful it is at building individuals. So are genes the PUNS? If we discount the citron, which rarely changes anyways, we can comfortably say yes.

If several people are driving down through Miami, and are blown up in a gang war the question should be: did the people inside the car have any influence on whether they survive? The ability of the people in the car to retaliate, will decide whether they stay alive or not. The car really doesn’t have any significant say on the situation; it’s the people inside (the genes) that decide what happens! However, I believe this is a somewhat false analogy. The people in the car don’t have copies of themselves driving around in other cars. If they did, as genes do, the outcome of the incident wouldn’t really matter.

Yes, it is the individual that things happen to, but the individual is the result of gene programming. Do we blame, or commend, a car for breaking down, or the people who designed it? The genes are really being put through a series (a very long series) of tests. Their creations are being thoroughly examined, and if they weren’t efficient architects, their machine (individual) will die! But will the genes die as well? Not necessarily. The same genes that were responsible for the death of the particular organism go on living in other organisms, working in different conditions, doing different experiments.

“It's the animal (and the genes trapped inside) that lives or dies, gets lucky or winds up playing D&D (j/k).” Even when species go extinct, the genes don’t necessarily die off, they continue with their journey within other species (recently the genes responsible for the development of the mouse eye was implanted into a fly, it grew a perfectly good FLY eye). So when an individual dies, the genes don’t die with it, they go on living in other organisms (This is the reason why bee’s sacrifice their own life for the sake of the hive, because the sacrifice of a few genes is irrelevant, compared to the amount that will be saved). Genes for saving copies of them selves would have been favored by natural selection.

Finally, I will agree with you, this is really making me think. As you commented before, in an earlier post, it is good to have a discussion about real science, than non stop arguing with the creationists. It just makes you realize how annoying, boring and ignorant their arguments are. Gould and Dawkins agreed that debating them is pointless and that we should stick to debating each other. I couldn’t agree more.

Free Thinking

Mokele,

To help you understand my point of view I will introduce another analogy. I have used the car metaphor before, but now I will take it one step further. I will use the engine to represent the genes and the rest of the car to represent the individual. The car appears as though it is the driving force of motor vehicle evolution, because it is successful models that a replicated in the future. But the most important units of selection in the car industry are the individual parts of the engine. Most of these parts don’t get changed, but are simply passed down to new models (individuals). Sometimes an engineer will find a way to improve a part, and this can be compared to the random mutations of genes. The engineer takes the role of nature, by constantly weeding out and improving the performance of the engine (genes). However, the car does play a part in motor vehicle evolution, even though it is a relatively small one. The paint, seats and the sounds system all have an influence upon future models, but all would be utterly useless without the engine.

I do agree that learned behavior does work on the individual level; I am just reluctant to accept that it plays a major role in the overall picture. When writing a computer program you allow the program the versatility to make some basic decisions based on previous experience. I believe this is what genes do to the individual bodies. So what happens when an individual doesn’t learn, and gets eaten? It genes didn’t make very successful programmers. In the future, genes that are capable of better programming will be favored. Better programming might represent a single citron which will enable the dear to remember past events better than its peers. The questions that are raised from this are: how important are the casualties along the way? When dealing with millions of year of evolution, how important are a few individuals? I admit that I am not too familiar with the topic of learned behavior and how it is passed on. Is there anyone who can offer an explanation or provide link on the topic in the forum?

Same genes seem to pass through different species, adapting towards different conditions. Those same genes started at point A at some time in the distant past and they will move towards the future by adapting to different organisms. All the casualties, failed mutations and failures to learn along the way, are just small bumps on the road.

Genes alter the organism to help them selves get passed on to the next generation. I can not help use the Dawkins cliché “we are all gene machines”. Genes program us to be faster, stronger and smarter and it is genes that get the reward, by being passed on to future generation. Every mistake along the way is weeded out, every good creation observed. We are nothing by experiments, constantly changed for the good of the genes.

I think we are both agreeing up to a point where I think that the individual is really a collection of genes and you interpret it as something else. When you say “but it's not the genes dying or screwing, but rather the organism” what do you think drives the organism to “screw up”. It is the genes, the architects of the body. They are to blame for every success and failure of the organism. They are the true units of natural selection.

FreeThinking

But what about learning, for instance? This can clearly affect survival in important ways (ex:"don't eat that plant/snake, it's poisonous/venomous) and occurs at the organismal level based on experiences. While the ability to learn is coded for by genes, the actual content is not.

As far as I understand, experience doesn't get passed on. Genes just act as a template for a new organism and don’t pass on any "learning" done by parents. I do see a fault in this however. The fear of snakes must have been passed on, because we don’t encounter snakes in modern times. Can you offer any references regarding the inheritance of “learning experiences”? I would be interested in further reading.

I'm confused. While we've been saying "gene", shouldn't we properly be saying "allele", in that alleles are competing for representation in their locus/gene? If so, shouldn't the sickle-cell and non-sickle-cell alleles be in direct competition?

Aren't the sickle-cell and non-sickle-cell allele identical. I though the genes the sickle-cell interacts with decided the effect it has on the body.

I'm not sure about this statement. I'd think that short' date=' fast lives (like insects) would be beneficial, in that the genes would have shorter times between replications.

So far as I know, selection works equally well on elephants and dung beetles.[/quote']

 

Genes move through generations of replicators. They mix with different genes and have different effects on organism’s throughout their existence. It doesn’t matter whether an organism lives for a day or a century; these are all small fractions of time compared to the "long reach" of the gene. I look at it as if a "sub-evolution" is happening within organisms. Genes interact with other genes, just as animals interact with other animals. The genes are judged for the abilities to have the best effect on the bodies and how well they interact with other genes. Individual roles a minor, compared to the roles played by genes.

 

If I am a good driver, the car I am driving will not have a huge influence on the amount of accidents I have. It might contribute slightly (brakes, air bags...) but on the end it will be the driver (genes) who is responsible for any accidents.

 

 

It's an accident all around.

 

Not really. From the individual as the unit of selection view, if the individual dies, that’s it. Evolution stops the selection process right there. The unfortunate organism will not have offspring.

 

From the genes point of view it doesn’t really matter. Those same genes, in different bodies, will continue striving and having an influence in the long run.

 

 

Thanks for the compliments, and for the link. I have completed some studies in a different field (IT) but the big questions about life have always been in my head. When I think about it, why would anyone study anything else? People always comment that Atheists can not have morals or purpose. My motivation comes from being an Atheist and from having the opportunity to explore such a mysterious and beautiful world.

 

 

FreeThinker

I like the analogy of genes working in "teams", but doesn't that reinforce my point? They're stuck in their team, and whether they get to the next round (reproduce) depends on the *whole* team. If one team member screws everything up, they all go down.

Each player plays for better recognition. We get an illusion of a *team* when infact it is eleven (soccer) individuals playing for their own selfish gains(career!

As for sickle-cell, I'm not sure that really does bolster your point, either? How does gene-selection theory account for heterozygote advantage? Seems to me, it would predict a total take-over by one or the other (in a 'selfsih' manner), rather than a stabilizing effect.

Good point. The simple explanation is that it is the strength/weakness of the gene. By evolving a dual-ability it is its way of survival. Given enough time, a gene with different effects on different bodies would probably go extinct.

Genes are what is affected by selection, and are the best currency to measure evolution in, but the act of selection itself mostly occurs at the organism level, at the level of the "teams of genes".

When a organism is eaten, genes who were particularly bad at working in a *team* would be the cause. After, lets say,genes that were the most capable of adapting to different bodies/genes would have survived. Individual lives of organisms are too short to have any significant impact.

What happens when a organism with good genes is killed by some freak accident (falling of rocks, drowning..)? If you look at it from a organism as unit of selection view, its a failure to reproduce and pass the genes forward. From a selfish gene view, it was just a unfortunate accident, those same good genes will go living in other organisms.

Or, to abuse the team analogy a bit, even if the players are cooperating but still looking out for number 1, it's the team as a whole who wins or loses the game.

Remember that each member is "Number 1". Everyone looks after themselves. Usually when a player is not getting enough time on the field, he will move clubs. If it was truly a *team* commitment, he would stay, having him on the bench is better for the team than not having him at all! Genes are selfish in the same way, they just don’t have a choice but to stay in the body!

I have no doubts that organism play a part in natural selection. But it is a limited part, a lot smaller than the role played by the genes!

On a slightly different note, I am starting University next year, studying Bachelor of Science. Most of the science I learn is from self learning (books, magazines, peers…). I feel that this forum can help me expend my knowledge of the field. I am not really familiar with the more sophisticated side to science/biology. So if you could reference some books, websites, it would be greatly appreciated. My special area of interest is evolution.

Cheers!

Freethinker

FreeThinker

How can genes for longer teeth in a lion spread *without* growing a full lion and witnessing the selective effect on the organism?

The organism itself would be influenced by *genes* for their own selfish needs. Once the genes are passed on, each gene would react differently in different organisms. By abandoning the previous body, the genes will be judged on the ability to interact with other genes, and this is where genes come into play as units of selection. The important thing to remember is that the genes will not always be of benefit to the organism, which, if it was the case, could be mistaken for a overall genetic improvement of a species by constant weeding out of *bad* genes.

Genes don't die or find mates, organisms do, as *collections* of genes. If selection occured at the genetic level, each gene would be acted on separately. The occurence of linkage groups alone disproves this, not to mention developmental genes.

The genes will only work together a period of time, the lifespan of a organism. The genes that are best capable in working as a *team* with other genes will be passed on. This can be misleading, so it is important to remember that working well with other genes is a crucial requirement of a particular gene.

A soccer team might have eleven players. They all appear to be working as a team, but actually each player started of trying to make a career, for himself. Why do you think they change clubs when a bigger money offer is on the table?

Let's try sickle-cell. Is that allele good or bad? The answer is, you don't and *can't* know. Not until you have an organism and an environment (with or without malaria) for it to interact with.

Organism can not be the unit of selection. The life of a organism is too short to have any kind of selective power. The sickle-cell works exactly as would be expected if genes were the unit of selection. It is not necessarily a beneficiary to a particular organism, but yet it manages to be passed on. Its multi-abilities, if you like, have enabled it to be a very successful replicator.

Lions don't just kill the genes for poor running in the unfortunate mutant gazelle they catch, they kill and eat the whole animal, all it's genes, good and bad.

 

There *are* instances of gene-level selection (transposons would be one), but for the vast majority of the time, it's the organism which is acted upon by selection.

The best genes might not always survive. If a lion kills a gazelle and it had a poor gene for running , it is obvious that other genes didn’t interact well with the poor - running gene. Those same genes probably go on surviving in other gazzeles where they are better suited to interact with other genes.

Dawkins is a great writer. I believe that his view of natural selection is not only interesting, but very credible. Genes are most likely the unit of selection, not species. Can anyone provide any arguments otherwise?

His views on religion are extreme, but well justified. I suggest reading his essays , not just his books, to get a clearer picture of his views.

If the enzymes correct mutations, how is it that we get any at all?

How many possible mutations could happen within a organism? How many of those would be corrected?

I understand that most mutations are a disadvantage to the particular organism.

I can see how a random mutation (tiger with bigger teeth, faster antelope…)could be of benefit to a particular organism, and how that mutation would populate the entire species over a period of time.

Now here is the part I can’t quiet get my head around; with the miscopying of DNA it seems to me as if the number of possible mutations is close to infinite. So how do we get a series of mutations that develops a certain aspect of the body, such as feathers on birds? My process of reasoning takes me through these steps:

1. A certain reptile developed skin in between its claws (SBC) making it more air resistant and able to jump of higher rocks (for example).

2. The particular reptile survives to pass the genes for SBC to its offspring. Soon we have a whole population of the particular reptile species with SBC.

3. More miscopying of DNA results in the skin developing to reach the end of the claws. Once again this serves as an advantage… And so on.

Even to get the first bit of skin between the claws is to beat the odds against all other possible mutations on the body. To reach the feathered ancestor version (birds) the number of mutations, on the same place of the body (claws), would be enormous. So how did birds develope feathers? Is there a huge amount of mutations ,where almost all mutational possibilities happen? It seems logical that a chance of a mutation happening on one part of the body is just as likely as it happening anywhere else. We would have to go a whole cycle to get back to the additional mutation to the skin between claws. I understand some mutations might occur soon after the previous one, but surely not for the whole development of wings!

The only answer I can think of is that if animal A has a mutation for Skin between claws (SBC) those genes are passed down and eventually the whole species has the gene for SBC. Now the odds of the SBC mutation improving are significantly higher because there is so many animals with SBC.

How many mutational steps occur during the development of wings? I am guessing an enormous number. How do they all pile up on the same part of the body? Wouldn’t the species go instinct from all the bad mutations before such a high cumulative number of good mutations occur?

Looking forward to the discussion

Thank you,

Freethinking