Evolution Research - Personal Posts

Support or Sponsor 'Evolution Research'

2006-07-17T20:49:00.001+01:00

1) Journals 2) Papers 3) Expertise 4) Donations

The day-to-day purpose of this blog (when time allows!) is to reflect ongoing research into the possibility of a testable internal evolutionary mechanism based on an extension to homeostasis (see Why research an 'Internal Evolutionary Mechanism'? and The Internal Evolutionary Mechanism: Basic Concept).

The ultimate objective being the putting together of a series of arguments designed to arouse the curiosity of someone with the resources to prove, or disprove, the proposal.

In the meantime, as an independent researcher, my own resources are limited and help in any of the following areas would be very welcome! (email evoresearch@googlemail.com)

1) Access to Journals (JSTOR, Nature, Science, PNAS, etc.)

A few months ago I emailed Niles Eldredge about an 1889 paper by JM Clarke describing fibonacci spirals in trilobite eyes which Niles refers to in his book Time Frames (scanned here).

Unfortunately, Niles had lost track of the citation but did think the paper may have been published by American Scientist. One internet contact then searched JSTOR on my behalf while others provided details of trilobite papers which might be of interest.

The activity was spread over two weeks at the end of which the wanted paper still hadn't been found. Many such quests come to a (hopefully temporary) halt but it would be so much faster - as well as maintaining 'continuity of research' - if I were able to access resources directly.

2) Papers

Individual authors have been very helpful in responding to requests for copies of papers.
When direct approaches aren't possible it can be quite good fun using Google to track down papers 'hidden' in obscure regions of cyberspace. Overall, however, this is very much a hit-or-miss approach and it doesn't help when such papers are subsequently moved or deleted! (although they are sometimes 'retrievable' via archive.org).

3) Expertise

Two areas where help is required immediately spring to mind:

a) Help in developing a mathematical analogy of the proposed internal evolutionary mechanism - see the flowchart in The Internal Evolutionary Mechanism: Basic Concept). I also need advice on analysing matrices, specifically this one: Cytochrome C and species divergence

b) I would be very interested in hearing of phenomena such as those described in Info wanted on two intriguing 'Lamarckian' experiments (email)

4) Donations

Until I win the lottery and am able to hire the services of a fully-equipped lab (not that I'm holding my breath!) donations will be offset against the cost of books/papers/subscriptions/etc..

Secure transactions via PayPal can be made by using the "donate" button at the top of the sidebar, or email for alternative methods of making a contribution.

John Latter / Jorolat

(Support/Sponsor 'Evolution Research')

technorati tags: internal+evolutionary+mechanism, evolution, research, sponsor, support, publications, books, papers, journals, jorolat, john+latter, paypal

Comment: Symmetry and Asymmetry

2006-03-23T08:34:00.000+00:00

This news item reminds me of the Palmer papers on symmetry and asymmetry in the Main Blog:

Sinister secret of snail's escape
"Snails with left-handed shells can have a big advantage in life - predators may find it impossible to eat them.
That is the conclusion of research just published in the Royal Society's journal Biology Letters.
Scientists from the US examined whelks and cone shells preyed on by the crab Calappa flammea.
They found the crab is unable to open left-handed shells because it only has a tool for peeling them on its right claw; so it discards them.
'The crabs have a special tool on their claw, a tooth that's used like a can-opener,' said Gregory Dietl from Yale University.
'So, if you imagine trying to use a right-handed can-opener with your left hand - it's very hard to do,' he told the BBC News website."

The two papers are:

From symmetry to asymmetry: Phylogenetic patterns of asymmetry variation in animals and their evolutionary significance

"...Furthermore, because antisymmetry typically signals an environmentally triggered asymmetry, the phylogenetic transition from antisymmetry to directional asymmetry suggests that many cases of laterally fixed asymmetries evolved via genetic assimilation."

Symmetry Breaking and the Evolution of Development

"...First, directional asymmetry, an evolutionary novelty, arose from nonheritable origins almost as often as from mutations, implying that genetic assimilation ('phenotype precedes genotype') is a common mode of evolution."

For recent posts on genetic assimilation see:

Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (1) etc..

John Latter

Featured books from the Science and Evolution Bookshop:

"Right Hand, Left Hand: The Origins of Asymmetry in Brains, Bodies, Atoms and Cultures" (Amazon UK | US)

"Hemispheric Asymmetry: What's Right and What's Left (Perspectives in Cognitive Neuroscience)" (Amazon UK | US)

Other books on Symmetry from the Science and Evolution Bookshop: UK | US

technorati tags: genetic+assimilation, john+latter, news, snail, crab, evolution, asymmetry, symmetry, biology

Re: Coming Soon: Evolution of the Lateral Line into the Ear

2006-03-22T14:48:00.000+00:00

I haven't had much internet time for the last few days (and I'm likely to be busy until the weekend) but I thought I'ld post an 'update'.

Looking into the lateral line has certainly proved interesting - some possibilities have evaporated while others have appeared in their place - but my overall impression at the moment is that it may be more profitable (in terms of time invested) if I put this on hold and then come back to it later. I'll see how it goes!

John Latter

technorati tags: lateral+line

Coming Soon: Evolution of the Lateral Line into the Ear

2006-03-19T21:07:00.000+00:00

On Monday I posted this Nature news item to the General Evolution News category:

Ear's spiral responds to bass - New theory explains why our hearing machinery is coiled up.

"Why is our cochlea, the key organ of hearing, curled into a spiral? It has been often thought to be a space-saving measure. But researchers in the United States have shown that the spiral could be vital for increasing our ear's sensitivity to sound, particularly at low frequencies.

Daphne Manoussaki of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, and her colleagues believe that the snail-shell curve of the cochlea focuses sound waves at the spiral's outer edge, making it easier for vibration-sensitive cells to detect them1.

If the researchers are right, then the ear is more sophisticated than we thought. "

Not only is the article interesting in itself, but it brought to mind something I read sometime ago concerning evolution of the lateral line into the ear, and I thought it might make a good example of how such questions can be approached from the perspective of the proposed internal evolutionary mechanism.

I've spent quite a lot of time today trying to establish a 'baseline' from which to proceed, making sure I've got my facts right etc., but it may be that the notes will be very brief. It's a question of starting from the 'top' and then deciding how far down the hierarchy to go - I'll probably spend more time on creating the jpegs! Anyway, the post should give an insight and hopefully will be ready by Wednesday at the latest.

John Latter

technorati tags: lateral+line, ear, bass, evolution, news

Tom Stoppard, The Darwinian World, and The Declaration of Independence

2006-03-18T19:38:00.000+00:00

Saturday is always a busy day and after breakfast (having decided to take a day or two off from writing about specific aspects of the proposed mechanism) I scanned the news headlines to see if there was anything about evolution in general that could be briefly commented upon in tonight's post.

"A matter of give and take" by Tom Stoppard in The Guardian (UK) caught my eye:

Tom Stoppard argues that free speech is not an inalienable human right

The idea that being human and having rights are equivalent - that rights are inherent - is unintelligible in a Darwinian world. It is easily and often overlooked that when Thomas Jefferson asserted that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were inalienable human rights, he did so on the ground that they had been endowed by God, our Creator.

That is how Jefferson deemed "these truths to be self evident". Yet, we do not find that insistence on human rights is the preserve of believers. Still less do we find the right of free expression being derived from God's endowment. Is the right of free expression self-evident?

That was all I had time to read so I printed a copy out and took it with me.

At lunchtime I read the whole article and was quite appalled. I felt that commenting at all would require commenting for hours (mainly about the role cultural conditioning plays in the forming of perceptions such as the world is "Darwinian") and so I decided to think of something else to write about.

On the way home, however, I felt curious about the context in which Jefferson had written "these truths to be self evident". As an Anglo-German living in the UK I have never read the Declaration of Independence, it begins:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Words are only a reflection of the person who wrote them rather than a definition and in that sense, I would suggest, are not to be take too 'literally'. Furthermore, their precise sequences can be affected by anything from the 'mood of the moment' to the 'attitude of a lifetime'. Quite obviously Jefferson hadn't finished with the continuing importance he attributed to the "Laws of Nature" simply because he had finished the first paragraph and the words do not appear in the second!

However, the main point I wish to make, from the perspective of an internal evolutionary mechanism, is that life is individual and no excuse or justification is necessary for the existence of that life.

On the specific question of "Free Speech": when a person reacts negatively to the words of another it may be to the listener's ultimate benefit to ask themselves whether their response is innate or acquired - but also to ask the same question about the behaviour of the speaker!

John Latter

technorati tags: evolution, news, darwinian, jefferson, declaration, independence, free+speech

Click to read A matter of give and take

Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (3)

2006-03-17T19:19:00.000+00:00

Waddington's "The evolution of adaptations" gives a logical explanation of how ostrich callosities may have become hereditary but specifically refers only to those found "fore and aft" on the underside of the body.

On page 37 of "The Great Evolution Mystery" Gordon Rattray Taylor goes on to say:

Curiously, it [the ostrich] also has calluses on its ankles which are of no use to it, as it turns its foot sideways when sitting. They may, however, have been functional long ago when the ostrich had three toes and probably did not turn its feet over.

Yesterday's post, Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (2), describes how the callosities could have become hereditary from the perspective of the proposed internal evolutionary mechanism (the end result of the process being restoration of the 'localized area of equilibrium' to its initial state).

There is, of course, no "Law of Use and Disuse". But if, for example, consideration is given to the degeneration of the eye and loss of pigmentation in cavefish, then why have the ankle calluses of ostriches 'persisted' if they were "functional long ago"?

The answer is simple: When the ankle calluses became hereditary in the three-toed ostrich then contact between those areas and the ground would no longer have affected the 'localized area of equilibrium at the apex of the homeostatic hierarchy'.

During the transition from the three-toed to the two-toed ostrich the ankle calluses would still have had no affect upon the localized 'area of equilibrium'. Consequently, they are still there.

Eye degeneration and loss of pigmentation in cavefish, on the other hand, are examples of 'negative equilibrium' affecting the localized area and will be discussed in a future post.

John Latter

This is the third of three posts on Waddington's "The evolution of adaptations". The other two are at:

Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (1)
Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (2)

The title link of all three posts goes to the Main Blog entry for Waddington's paper and this link goes to the paper itself.

technorati tags: waddington, evolution, mystery, ostrich, ankle, eye, cavefish, john+latter

Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (2)

2006-03-16T18:30:00.000+00:00

Preamble (for the benefit of new/future visitors): The concept of an internal evolutionary mechanism originates from the 'anomalies' referred to in " A Model of an Internal Evolutionary Mechanism and reflects a known single state.

There is a hesitation in extrapolating beyond this 'start condition', partially because the current mathematical model can only represent a single trajectory (see An Internal Evolutionary Mechanism and 'Direction in Evolution': Preliminary Notes) irrespective of how it is applied, but also because further development requires insight and research as much as 'logic'. For this reason the proposed mechanism will continue to be described as a 'localized area of equilibrium at the apex of an homeostatic hierarchy' (rather than, for example, any assignation along the lines of 'organs, tissues, and cells' to progressively lower levels within the hierarchy).

Main Content:

Today's extract from "The evolution of adaptations" is slightly shorter than yesterday's: the emphasis this time is on Waddington's description of the process whereby the callosities of ostriches become hereditary (rather than the intellectual strategy whereby the 'incredible' was reduced to the 'credible').

Having said that, however, I wonder if Waddington said "This may have seemed too long a train of argument to be very convincing" because of his own lingering doubts as much as any likely to arise in a reader.

After all, reducing the incredible to the credible was done within the framework of the 'modern view' of his day and its continuing dependency upon the discontinuity contained within setting up a "cybernetic developmental mechanism... rather like a gun set to go off when the trigger is pulled" and then subsequently waiting for the fortuitous arrival of a mutation sufficient to "pull the trigger". The human mind may be able to jump such gaps but perhaps the natural world is unable to.

...the ostrich squats down in such a way that the under surface of the body comes into contact with the ground at its two ends, fore and aft. In just these places a considerable callosity develops in the skin (figure 2), and Duerden [8] showed that these thickenings make their appearance in the embryo before hatching.

...It certainly seems very far-fetched to attempt to explain such phenomena without bringing in the fact that the environment might be expected to produce similar effects. Let us consider, therefore, what might happen to an ostrich in which the appropriate callosities were not hereditarily determined. Presumably its skin, like that of most other animals, would react directly to external pressure and rubbing by becoming thicker. Now the point which seems to have been overlooked in previous discussions of the matter is that this capacity to react must itself be dependent on genes. Since populations of animals are never quite uniform in any character, we must expect that the ostrich ancestors varied in their capacity to produce the most suitable callosities; and there could he effective natural selection for those which performed the most satisfactory exogenous adaptation. A race would evolve in which the stresses set up by squatting in a particular way would call forth the development of appropriate adaptive thickenings of the skin.

At this stage, the thickenings would still not be hereditary and independent of the pressure and rubbing; they would still be acquired characters in the conventional sense. We can find a hypothesis of how they might come to be hereditarily fixed if we turn to consider another aspect of the matter. The callosities are the results of developmental processes. Now, one of the main characteristics of animal development is that it tends to be canalized or buffered, so that the optimum end result is produced even if there are minor variations from the normal conditions while the process is going on [11]. Natural selection, in fact, does not merely ensure that only those animals survive which have something near the optimum characteristics, but favours those genotypes which tend to produce such animals under any conditions. It gradually builds up efficient cybernetic mechanisms, to use a fashionable phrase. Thus we may expect to reach a stage in which our ostriches nearly always develop callosities of just the right size and position, even in those individuals which, to put it crudely, sit down very seldom or those which loll about the whole time.

Once such a cybernetic developmental mechanism has been built up, it will be rather like a gun set to go off when the trigger is pulled. The development of the callosities will proceed quite autonomously, once the process can be started. The initial stimulus, which may be a greater or lesser amount of external pressure, has become a relatively minor factor in the whole situation. It may then not be too difficult for a gene mutation to occur which will modify some other nearby region of the embryo in such a way that it takes over the function of the external pressure, interacting with the skin so as to 'pull the trigger' and set off the development of the callosities [12].

Before embarking upon a description of how callosities can become hereditary from the perspective of an internal evolutionary mechanism, it may be worth making the the following points:

1) Commentaries such as this one are not being offered as 'convincing arguments' in themselves. The primary purpose, in this instance for example, is not to argue that Waddington was somehow 'wrong' in his interpretation. The proposed mechanism is testable: these notes are more intended to show how natural phenomena can be looked at in a way that augments the argument for such testing to be done.

2) The ensuing references to "existing thresholds being exceeded" can not be more specific unless - for any organism - one or more instances of such an occurrence are already known. See Info wanted on two intriguing 'Lamarckian' experiments for possible examples of this.

3) Anyone who actually reads this post may reach the end and say "Thanks very much, but I'll stick with what I know!". There will be a third post in this mini-series (appearing either tomorrow or Saturday) addressing an interesting aspect which Waddington doesn't mention:

Curiously, it [the ostrich] also has calluses on its ankles which are of no use to it, as it turns its foot sideways when sitting [More]

As an additional 'enticement', commenting on the above will allow the proposed mechanism's relationship with the "Law of Use and Disuse" to be put into context.

How callosities may become hereditary

It is lunchtime and I am sitting in a Social Club busily scribbling away on the back of unwanted print-outs. From experience I know that if I continue this activity long enough today then the skin on the outside of my little finger will start to feel sore. Persevering for several days will eventually cause a callus with form.

The fact I consciously experience distress from the affected area indicates there will be a corresponding effect on the 'localized area of equilibrium at the apex of an homeostatic hierarchy' located within the 'older' (in evolutionary terms) structures of the brain.

Providing I do nothing further to aggravate the constant pressure on the outside of my little finger then formation of the callus will have three effects:

1) Tissue damage ceases at the site of the callus
2) Pain is no longer felt
3) The 'localized area of equilibrium', although 'offset' by the presence of the callus, is no longer affected by transient 'inputs' from the affected area - a state of equilibrium has been re-established.

If I persisted with the activity of writing for long enough within my own lifetime, and my (and other people's) descendants did so in theirs, then eventually the existing thresholds of the localized area of equilibrium would be exceded. Conceptually, this would trigger 'top-down' changes within the homeostatic hierarchy of the genome until the initial state of equilibrium has been restored (ie the 'offset' mentioned above would be gone). This would take 'n' generations, initially 'fast' but then tapering off, and it wouldn't matter if every pencil in the world disappeared once the process began. The 'size and shape' of the callus (as much as location and any other characteristic) would reflect the point at which equilibrium was restored relative to when no callus existed.

As usual I've finished far later than anticipated and any editing will have to wait until tomorrow (usually I see flaws the following day but move on regardless - after all the proposal is still 'under construction'!).

John Latter

This is the second of three posts on Waddington's "The evolution of adaptations". The other two are at:

Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (1)
Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (3)

The title link of all three posts goes to the Main Blog entry for Waddington's paper and this link goes to the paper itself.

technorati tags: internal+evolutionary+mechanism, evolution, callus, adaptations, ostrich, waddington, lamarckian, john+latter

Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (1)

2006-03-15T17:35:00.000+00:00

Evolutionary Theory, The White Rabbit, and Genetic Assimilation

In "The evolution of adaptations", Waddington states:

The reigning modern view is that, in nature, the direction of mutational change is entirely at random, and that adaptation results solely from the natural selection of mutations which happen to give rise to individuals with suitable characteristics. I want to argue that this theory is an extremist one

and then briefly categorizes three types of adaptations: exogenous, pseudo-exogenous, and endogenous.

The next extract from the paper is necessarily extensive. Sections which are particularly relevant to the following comments have been 'colour-coded':

...It is the remaining category of adaptations, the pseudo-exogenous, which has provoked the most discussion. We are confronted here by phenomena for which an explanation could so easily be found in a direct effect of some environmental factor, were it not that further study demonstrates unequivocally that the structure concerned is determined by the heredity of the organism, and is relatively independent of the environment. The question arises whether we can bring ourselves to believe that the part which the environment can play in mimicking the condition is really irrelevant, and that the evolution of this particular adaptation has resulted from the selection of chance mutations which might have appeared and produced the phenotypes even if the environmental effects had never existed.

Some concrete examples will make the problem clearer. One of the most familiar is that of the thickened skin on the soles of our feet. This thickening is obviously an adaptation to the stresses which this region of the body has to bear; but, as Darwin pointed out, and as Semon [7] discussed in a full-length paper, the thickening already appears in the embryo, before the foot has ever borne any weight. The structure therefore cannot be a direct response to external pressure, but must be produced by the hereditary constitution independently of the specific external influence to which it is an adaptation. The situation is even more striking when similar thickenings are found on less conventional parts of the body. For instance, the ostrich squats down in such a way that the under surface of the body comes into contact with the ground at its two ends, fore and aft. In just these places a considerable callosity develops in the skin (figure 2), and Duerden [8] showed that these thickenings make their appearance in the embryo before hatching.
...It certainly seems very far-fetched to attempt to explain such phenomena without bringing in the fact that the environment might be expected to produce similar effects. Let us consider, therefore, what might happen to an ostrich in which the appropriate callosities were not hereditarily determined. Presumably its skin, like that of most other animals, would react directly to external pressure and rubbing by becoming thicker. Now the point which seems to have been overlooked in previous discussions of the matter is that this capacity to react must itself be dependent on genes. Since populations of animals are never quite uniform in any character, we must expect that the ostrich ancestors varied in their capacity to produce the most suitable callosities; and there could he effective natural selection for those which performed the most satisfactory exogenous adaptation. A race would evolve in which the stresses set up by squatting in a particular way would call forth the development of appropriate adaptive thickenings of the skin.
At this stage, the thickenings would still not be hereditary and independent of the pressure and rubbing; they would still be acquired characters in the conventional sense. We can find a hypothesis of how they might come to be hereditarily fixed if we turn to consider another aspect of the matter. The callosities are the results of developmental processes. Now, one of the main characteristics of animal development is that it tends to be canalized or buffered, so that the optimum end result is produced even if there are minor variations from the normal conditions while the process is going on [11]. Natural selection, in fact, does not merely ensure that only those animals survive which have something near the optimum characteristics, but favours those genotypes which tend to produce such animals under any conditions. It gradually builds up efficient cybernetic mechanisms, to use a fashionable phrase. Thus we may expect to reach a stage in which our ostriches nearly always develop callosities of just the right size and position, even in those individuals which, to put it crudely, sit down very seldom or those which loll about the whole time.

Once such a cybernetic developmental mechanism has been built up, it will be rather like a gun set to go off when the trigger is pulled. The development of the callosities will proceed quite autonomously, once the process can be started. The initial stimulus, which may be a greater or lesser amount of external pressure, has become a relatively minor factor in the whole situation. It may then not be too difficult for a gene mutation to occur which will modify some other nearby region of the embryo in such a way that it takes over the function of the external pressure, interacting with the skin so as to 'pull the trigger' and set off the development of the callosities [12].

This may have seemed too long a train of argument to be very convincing, but a good deal of experimental evidence can now be produced to support it

Unlike the White Queen, who apparently could believe up to six impossible things before breakfast, Waddington's position where he writes:

"The question arises whether we can bring ourselves to believe that the part which the environment can play in mimicking the condition is really irrelevant."

could be described as one where he finds such a belief to be 'incredible'.

The subsequent description of the process given in the "too long a train of thought", however, eventually enables the stage to be reached where he can say:

It may then not be too difficult for a gene mutation to occur which will modify some other nearby region of the embryo.

Waddington's explanation is very readable and it certainly does reduce the gap between the 'incredible' and the credible. But, it is suggested, only from an intellectual point of view!

Waddington's solution still doesn't address the important 'discontinuity' supposed to exist in the natural world between the setting up of a "cybernetic developmental mechanism... rather like a gun set to go off when the trigger is pulled" and the fortuitous arrival of a mutation sufficient to "pull the trigger".

No such discontinuity exists when the phenomena of ostrich callosities is looked at from the perspective of the proposed internal evolutionary mechanism but further comments will have to wait until tomorrow or Friday.

John Latter

This is the first of three posts on Waddington's "The evolution of adaptations". The other two are at:

Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (2)
Re: The evolution of adaptations (Waddington) (3)

The title link of all three posts goes to the Main Blog entry for Waddington's paper and this link goes to the paper itself.

technorati tags: natural+selection, genetic+assimilation, evolution, white+rabbit, waddington, environment, darwin, embryo, ostrich, callosities

Odds 'n Ends

2006-03-14T21:04:00.000+00:00

"The Evolution of Adaptations", a paper by C H Waddington published in 1953, is today's contribution to the Main Blog.

It is an interesting paper for several reasons but in particular for the ability to illustrate two important aspects of the proposed internal evolutionary mechanism. I won't be any more specific at the moment because the notes I made at lunchtime (while away from home) have been mislaid. Rather than go over the same ground again - especially as I have little free time this evening - I'll defer posting until tomorrow or thursday. If you're interested, then please come back!

With a few minutes to spare, I've just browsed through today's General Evolution News entries and not unexpectedly there's another item concerning the ongoing 'Cultural War':

Intelligent design and educational stupidity
"After the verdict went against the teaching of intelligent design in schools in Dover, Pennsylvania, you could be forgiven for thinking that the argument for teaching creationism was on the decline (1). However, in the UK the educational establishment seems hell-bent on introducing those very same ideas into all state schools.

As reported in The Times (London) on Friday, the OCR examination board has included a comparative study of creationist views on evolution alongside those of Darwin (2). But should we be surprised to see ideas promoted by the religious right in the USA dished up to schoolkids in Britain?

Even a cursory look at the new science GCSE is enough to give anyone pause for thought. "

The article is written by David Perks (a Head of Physics at a London school who has written for the Times Educational Supplement) and as usual I feel a familiar impulse to 'put pen to paper'. I must, however, try and maintain my status as a spectator of the 'Cultural War' rather than become a combatant - its a lot more fun!

As a UK resident, I've included the item on this occasion simply to reflect my surprise that the OCR (Oxford, Cambridge, and RSA) examination board "has included a comparative study of creationist views on evolution alongside those of Darwin"!

John Latter

technorati tags: intelligent+design, evolution, waddington, dover, darwin, science, news, gcse, london, blog

The Absent-Minded Professor and Evolutionary Theory

2006-03-13T14:52:00.000+00:00

The stated aim of this blog is to reflect the stumbling around that appears to be necessary before arriving at a cohesive and coherent proposal arguing that an internal evolutionary mechanism should be tested for.

If opportunities arose to become involved in such testing, of if others were already engaged upon such an activity, then there would probably be little point in answering "If an internal evolutionary mechanism exists, then why hasn't it been found before?".

At this moment in time, however, I feel the question does need addressing - if only as a personal contribution (no matter how inconsequential!) towards identifying those factors which currently affect serious consideration being given to the proposal

In earlier posts I've spoken of an interest in the evolutionary origins of psychological trauma and why, as a consequence, I'm reluctant to pay much attention to 'cultural evolution' (as far as this blog is concerned). While recognizing trauma can unknowingly and inadvertently be passed from generation to generation owing to 'cultural factors', it follows that I am even less inclined to comment upon the evolutionary effects that such a persistence of transmission may be responsible for. It would only 'muddy the waters', so to speak.

On the other hand, the following BBC News Report is relevant and worth commenting upon:

Scientific brain linked to autism

Highly analytical couples, such as scientists, may be more likely to produce children with autism, an expert has argued.

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, of the University of Cambridge, said the phenomenon might help explain the recent rise in diagnoses.

He believes the genes which make some analytical may also impair their social and communication skills.

A weakness in these areas is the key characteristic of autism...

...In a paper published in the journal Archives of Disease of Childhood, Professor Baron-Cohen labels people such as scientists, mathematicians and engineers as "systemizers".

They are skilled at analysing systems - whether it be a vehicle, or a maths equation - to figure out how they work.

But they also tend to be less interested in the social side of life, and can exhibit behaviour such as an obsession with detail - classic traits associated with autism.

Body of evidence

Professor Baron-Cohen argues that systemizers are often attracted to each other - and thus more likely to pass "autism" genes to their offspring.

Meet a person for the first time and you meet both the person and any psychological history they may have acquired: I agree with Baron-Cohen that systemizers are often attracted to one another but not that they are more likely to pass on 'autism genes' to their offspring in the sense implied.

I would argue that systemizers may seek out analytical/scientific careers to compensate for having had their "social and communication skills" impaired by their upbringing (see 'hands-off' trauma below) and that any genetic component would be the result of the persistence of such people meeting in succeeding generations - and it would only take one systemizer in a relationship to impair the "social and communication skills" in any progeny.

What better compensation could there be for the offspring of systemizers than to take refuge in the land of logic and analysis? The popular figure of the "Absent-minded Professor" springs to mind - someone who may be brilliant at scientific research but who, in everyday parlance, is often described as 'lacking common-sense'.

The problem, however, is greater than that: Truby King, as an example, once suggested that infants should be subjected to a fixed-feeding routine in order that they quickly become accustomed to the demands of Society. A logical way to treat infants?:

If an infant's next feed is due at 4 pm, but the infant unaccountably wakes up hungry at 3 pm, then the conditions for inflicting a 'hands-off' psychological trauma are all in place: the infant exists entirely in the 'present moment', has no awareness of the past, or that there will be a future (in which it might be fed). Cries of hunger will eventually turn to anger and should that anger reach an unsustainable peak then trauma may result. Systemizer parents would not even be aware that it had happened - the logic of "the next feed is not due until 4 pm" being unassailable.

The relevance of the above to evolution is that people who do not have an integrated experience of life may not be best placed to pay anything other than lip service to Gould & Lewontin's argument that "organisms should be analyzed as integrated wholes" - researching the possibility of an internal evolutionary mechanism requires that the nature of life is taken into account: organisms are integrated.

I suspect that reductionism holds an immense appeal for systemizers and that finding and holding on to an intellectually satisfying explanation/theory may hold a greater attraction than indulging in any risk-taking required to explore beyond the theory's intellectual boundaries: "Imagination is more important than knowledge" (Einstein again).

It is interesting to note the following:

Brilliant minds linked to autism

Historical figures including Socrates, Charles Darwin, and Andy Warhol probably had a form of autism, says a leading specialist.

Professor Michael Fitzgerald, of Dublin's Trinity College believes they showed signs of Asperger's syndrome.

Scientific geniuses Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein have also been previously linked to the condition.

Asperger's is associated with poor social skills, and obsessions with complex topics such as music.

Perhaps this is why Darwin came up with the concept of "Natural Selection" by way of explanation with the result that people today say "Natural Selection does this.." or "Natural Selection does that.." as if it were a natural entity.

The first five returns from putting "natural selection does" into Google gives:

1) natural selection does not act on individuals

2) Under some circumstances natural selection does play a role

3) Natural Selection does not only root out

4) natural selection does not say

5) natural selection does not go across

[My emphasis]

To what degree can Darwin be considered an "Absent-minded Professor"?

John Latter

technorati tags: natural+selection, trauma, blog, darwin, bbc, autism, news, traits, society, theory

An Internal Evolutionary Mechanism and 'Direction in Evolution': Preliminary Notes

2006-03-12T19:36:00.000+00:00

A TalkOrigins archive page entitled "Evolution and Philosophy: Is There Progress and Direction in Evolution?" begins:

One of the more common misconceptions, with a history long before Darwin, is that evolution is progressive; that things get more complex and perfect in some way. In fact, this view is attributed more to social and religious attitudes of 18th and 19th century European culture than to any evidence. It was a given that things are getting better and better, every way, every day. This persisted until long after Darwinism, until the middle of this century (e.g., Teilhard de Chardin). Even Darwin was ambiguous about it, talking on occasion about 'perfection' as a result of selection.

At the time of the 'modern synthesis' [note 9] in the 1940s, the notion of progress was quietly dropped, with a few exceptions like Dobzhansky and Huxley within the synthesis, and Schindewolf and Goldschmidt outside it. Of course, heterodox writers (usually not biologists) like Teilhard and Koestler remained progressionists long after this. But by the 1970s, progress had been abandoned by working biologists.

Recently, the issue has resurfaced, shorn of the mysticism of earlier debates. Biologist J.T. Bonner argued that there was a rise in complexity of organisms over the long term [1988], and others were arguing for a form of local progress under the terms 'arms race' [Dawkins and Krebs 1979] and 'escalation' [Vermeij 1987]. Gould [1989] felt so strongly about it he was moved to deny that, at least since the Cambrian explosion, there has been any progress at

It is implicit in proposing an internal evolutionary mechanism based on homeostasis that it must 'operate' in the same way at either end of the current evolutionary spectrum. The purpose of the following notes is to briefly demonstrate why the proposed mechanism is not 'directional' and/or imbued with a 'progressive' intent.

The Main Blog post The Internal Evolutionary Mechanism: Basic Concept describes a localized 'area of natural equilibrium' (AONE) at the apex/center of an homeostatic hierarchy along with the following flowchart producing the fibonacci series:

To recap: The fibonacci series begins "0, 1, 1, 2 ,3, 5" and each subsequent number can be formed by adding the two preceeding numbers together, eg 2 + 3 = 5, 3 + 5 = 8, 5 + 8 = 13 (etc.).
If the larger of two sucessive fibonacci numbers is divided by the smaller then a number is obtained which increasingly approximates to the 'golden ratio' or 'golden number': 1.6180339887498948482....
The flowchart opposite will generate the fibonacci series endlessly.
For simplicity it ignores the first zero, and rather than 'seeding' the program and adding succesive fibonacci numbers together, it generates the numbers via testing the ratio of 'x over y' against phi (where phi equals the golden number/ratio).
'y' is the fibonacci number produced, 'x' the incremental count. 'F' is required to test whether the 'x over y' ratio is closer to the golden ratio when x/y is above or below it.
NB I hope the maths are correct - please email any comments (and I would like help/advice in developing this further).

Consider an organism 'y' whose AONE is at equilibrium, ie x = 1. Without specifying why or how at this point (except to say the existing thresholds of the AONE have to be exceeded) x begins to increase - although it's not a runaway process: for the sake of argument assume x increases by '1' in this generation, another '1' in that, etc., etc.. During this period there is no discernable change in the Output "y" box.

When x/y exceeds phi then integration begins over 'n' generations (initially fast but then tapering off - although not apparent in this very basic model!) which may produce changes in the Output "y" box.

When integration is complete there is a new "y" ("y2") whose localized area of equilbrium has been restored to the initial state (ie x = 1).

If the new thresholds of y2 are exceeded then the process may begin again (and may stop at any point, even 'lose' - through the same modus operandi - any increments of x).

The flowchart produces the fibonacci series 1, 1, 2, 3 ,5... ...55, 89, 144 (etc.)

From an external viewpoint we are able to see the pattern and can predict what the next fibonacci number generated will be. Internally, however, the algorithm works the same way in every instance.

Equating the above fibonacci numbers to organisms: the transition from organism 2 to organism 3 simply reflects the internal 'resetting' of the AONE to its initial state - there's no intention/direction/progression towards ultimately 'producing' organisms 144, 233, etc..

Hope the above makes sense, it's rather late and I bet I groan when I read it through in the morning (if I do then I'll amend this accordingly so do come back!).

John Latter

technorati tags: modern+synthesis, talkorigins, evolution, philosophy, darwin, AONE, dawkins, homeostasis, fibonacci

Evolution, Education, and Einstein

2006-03-11T21:47:00.000+00:00

I read somewhere that an author will sometimes use famous quotes in an attempt to bolster a fundamentally weak argument. My purpose in including quotes in today's post is somewhat different and hopefully will become apparent long before the concluding remarks.

The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education. (Albert Einstein)

A soldier returning to civilian life may experience an initial difficulty in not automatically walking in step with whomever they accompany. This conditioned behavior is, of course, a function of what was instilled during basic training and then re-inforced throughout the remaining term of service.

A student can become similarly conditioned in the classroom (whether at school or sunday school) particularly during those periods where they have to revise for 'examinations'. This can lead to the retention of concepts which excede their sell-by dates and psychological resistance to any suggestion that the concepts be abandoned and/or modified.

Generally speaking it doesn't matter how good the grades a student achieves are because delight in success may be accompanied by relief that the externally applied pressure has finally ceased. There's no such thing as a free lunch: the price of passing the exams in this way is indicated by another of Einstein's quotes, "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education".

In "The International Flat Earth Society" and an Internal Evolutionary Mechanism I spoke about looking for specific cultural trends and also included the following quote by Dr. Richard von Sternberg of the Smithsonian Institute:

Finally, even the specter of Lamarck has reappeared. Lamarck's idea was, of course, that acquired traits can be passed on to offspring. None other than "Darwin Day" organizer Massimo Pigliucci is giving second thought to Lamarckism - after all, he notes, Darwin was a Lamarckian!

One of the basic trends I'm looking for is one leading to recognition that (in Gould and Lewontin's words) "organisms should be analyzed as 'integrated wholes'". An example path could be reductionism -> 'epigenetics inheritance systems' -> ? (where "?" is the point the proposal of an internal evolutionary mechanism may come in).

From a cultural perspective, the problem with considering that organisms are integrated wholes is that the center of integration does not lie in the intellect (it's not your mind that keeps you alive while you sleep is it?).

[I'm a bit unhappy with the last couple of paragraphs but I haven't the time to expand on them. They'll have to do for now. The main purpose of this post is the next part (and even that will have to be briefer than I hoped) - maybe I'll come back to the above in another post or edit this one at a later date. I'll certainly come back to the topic!]

With regard to Sternberg's comments about Pigliucci: "Expanding evolution: A broader view of inheritance puts pressure on the neo-darwinian synthesis" was posted to the Main Blog today which is a book review by Pigliucci of: "Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life by Eva Jablonka & Marion J. Lamb" (Amazon UK | US).

It contains lots of interesting stuff but I'll restrict myself to two extracts:

...The authors argue that there is more to heredity than genes; that some hereditary variations are non-random in origin; that some acquired information is inherited; and that evolutionary change can result from 'instruction' as well as selection. This may sound rather revolutionary, even preposterously close to lamarckism. But Jablonka and Lamb build on evidence from standard research in evolutionary and molecular biology, and their case should be examined on its merits, rather than being dismissed by a knee-jerk reaction...

Two brief points:

1) The 'error' with associating Lamarck with new proposals and/or discoveries is described in An Error In Associating Lamarck With 'Adaptive Mutations'?

2) Note the use of (an anticipated) 'knee-jerk reaction' - common when a suggestion is made contrary to what has been taught and irrespective of the natural reality of that suggestion.

...The clamour to revise neo-darwinism is becoming so loud that hopefully most practising evolutionary biologists will begin to pay attention. It has been said that science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off and the new generation is more open to novel ideas. I therefore recommend this and the other books I mentioned on the future of evolutionary theory to the current crop of graduate students, postdocs and young assistant professors. They'll know what to do.

1) The observation that "science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off" is again consistent with the effects of cultural conditioning.

2) I feel "and the new generation is more open to novel ideas" would be more accurate if it were to say "and the new generation is more open to novel ideas relative to the older generation"

3) "They'll know what to do": It certainly helps when people as well known as Pugliucci help create a psychologically healthier environment in which progress can be made (which he has contributed towards by writing this review) but I don't think they'll know what to do until they have a better idea of what it is they are looking for - and even why they are looking.

John Latter / Jorolat

technorati tags: einstein, school, education, epigenetics, inheritance, evolution, lamarck, science

The "The International Flat Earth Society" and an Internal Evolutionary Mechanism

2006-03-10T21:42:00.000+00:00

Part of a prominent disclaimer on a TalkOrigins page entitled Documenting the Existence of "The International Flat Earth Society" states:

Please do not send us feedback to tell us that the Earth is a sphere; we are already aware of this fact.

If I don't stop chuckling everytime I look at it I'll never get anything done! So, eyes further down the page and back to business:

The natural reality of the earth revolving around the sun was obviously entirely unaffected by any earlier belief in the geocentric theory, or indeed, even that the world was flat.

Similarly, because I believe there is a strong possibility an internal evolutionary mechanism may exist, I tend to look for any cultural trend indicating increased receptivity to such a proposal.

During the earlier period when I had time to spend on evolutionary interests, for example, I used to keep an eye out for anyone whose writing style appeared to reflect a particular type of perception, or whose areas of research might produce "unexpected results" consistent with the proposed mechanism's 'mode of operation'.

One such individual was Massimo Pigliucci and today I came across an article by Dr. Richard von Sternberg (a research associate of the Smithsonian Institute) containing:

From the genome sequencing projects and studies of how genes operate to the discovery of new fossils, evolutionary biology is in a state of transition. Examples are simply too numerous to cover adequately. But here are a few.

You have leaders in the field like W. Ford Doolittle presenting evidence that there is no "Tree of Life" but, instead, a complex web of gene sharing. Likewise, Carl Woese, one of the fathers of molecular phylogenetics, thinks the data support multiple, independent origins of organisms - that the notion of a Universal Common Ancestor is erroneous. Then again, evolutionary developmental biologists like Stuart Newman have performed experiments that suggest that animal body plans originated before genomes to "encode" them. I know it sounds radical, but he and other leaders in the field of "evo-devo" think that genes support development, but they don't provide the blueprint. Embryos self-organize, and genes provide the building materials. Finally, even the specter of Lamarck has reappeared. Lamarck's idea was, of course, that acquired traits can be passed on to offspring. None other than "Darwin Day" organizer Massimo Pigliucci is giving second thought to Lamarckism - after all, he notes, Darwin was a Lamarckian! [My emphasis]

Very intriguing - it may be worth an hour or two over the weekend to try and find out why Sternberg thinks Pigliucci "is giving second thought to Lamarckism".

John Latter

technorati tags: evolution, flat+earth, geocentric, research, smithsonian, evo-devo, lamarck, darwin

Occam's Razor and "Populations Evolve, Individuals Do Not"

2006-03-09T17:17:00.000+00:00

From "Common objections to 'Internal Evolutionary Mechanisms' (1)":

3) "Populations Evolve, Individuals Do Not"
From the TalkOrigins page "What is Evolution?":
"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."
This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to thenext."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population.
Individuals do not evolve, but if shared circumstances 'triggered' individual internal evolutionary mechanisms in a subset of a population then this could cause similar genetic changes to appear in their progeny. Thereby causing a "change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

Several years ago I was talking about my interest in a testable internal evolutionary mechanism in some forum or other when someone came back with "Populations evolve - not individuals!". I had the distinct impression the individual concerned believed that this statement alone absolutely precluded the possible existence of any such mechanism.

And yet I could find little meaning in the statement. After all, I am not aware of anyone who has ever suggested an individual can evolve - and what exactly constitutes a "population"?

In the same (or a similar) discussion I asked "If a population consists of 'n' male/female pairs and I take one pair way, then would this still be a 'population'?" If so, and I then removed another male/female pair, would this be a population too? (etc.).

I was trying to establish at what point the number of male/female pairs ceased to be a 'population' but the discussion either petered out or didn't proceed along those lines, I can't remember which.

Looking back I wonder if not being able to determine (to any meaningful degree) "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next" might hold the answer.

If so, then the same could be argued for a kaliedoscope: the patterns produced can be analyzed but if I repeatedly removed the coloured pieces of glass producing those patterns then there would come a point where the 'images' produced would be too disjoint for any meaningful information to be gleaned. And there would still be coloured pieces of glass left.

The point, of course, is that only the male/female pairs have a natural reality external to the intellect: you can remove any subset of male/female pairs from a population and perhaps alter the "frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next" but you can't do anything to the "frequency of alleles within a gene pool" and affect the male/female pairs.

On another occasion I tried a different tack: If you were to drive by a golf course soon after it started raining then it would come as no surprise to see a few upraised umbrellas among the spectators. If it continued to rain, and you came back ten minutes later, then there might be more umbrellas in evidence.

The question is "Has the population of umbrella-carriers grown or have a number of individuals employed a similar solution to a common set of circumstances?"

From internet discussions it seems clear that some people who are knowledgeable about evolutionary theory can only see that the population has grown.

To even consider the possibility of an internal evolutionary mechanism, on the other hand, requires recognition that a number of individuals found a similar solution - and might share a mutual awareness because of it.

Definiting evolution does not define, limit, or affect how evolutionary changes may or may not occur: go to the furthest ends of the earth and you will only ever see individual organisms, peer through a microscope into the smallest petri dish and you will only ever see individual bacterium. "Herds", "Flocks", "Shoals", and "Colonies" are only descriptive labels - not natural entities!

And you will never, ever, see a "gene pool". Remember Occam's razor:

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

If there are only individual organisms in the natural world then wouldn't it be sensible to consider the possibility that evolutionary changes occur because of something inside of them? something testable?

John Latter

Model of an Internal Evolutionary Mechanism:
http://members.aol.com/jorolat/TEM.html

technorati tags: occam's+razor, gene+pool, evolution, talkorigins

"I s'pect I just growed. Don't think nobody never made me."

2006-03-09T00:36:00.000+00:00

If this non-thinking, non-intelligent, and non-directional blog suddenly developed the ability to speak then it would probably echo the words Topsy spoke in "Uncle Tom's Cabin". At least, that is, until I add the new category I'm thinking of!

I suppose it's in the nature of writing a blog that many thoughts are transitory even if the the subjects they touch upon are by no means superficial.

Earlier today, for example, I posted Dembski's "Irreducible Complexity Revisited (PCID)", and simply because of trying to second-guess any visitor to this blog, rather reluctantly (even though it's true) included the caveat:

My perception of the concept [irreducible complexity] is similar to that of Pierre-Paul Grasse who believed 'Internal Factors' were involved in how evolutionary changes occurred - see Grasse, Behe, and "Irreducible Complexity".

Later on I came across "Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin's Theory of Evolution" (title link), and of course it's a personal opinion (which is what blogs are about and how it should be I guess!), but I can't help feeling a certain percentage of proponents of evolutionary theory and intelligent design have necessarily adopted their positions as a result of acquired psychological histories rather than through an instinctive curiosity.

One of the aims of this blog is to:

"Address those cultural factors which are applicable to answering the question 'If an internal evolutionary mechanism exists, then why hasn't it been found before?"

Even so, it might still be a good idea to introduce an additional category entitled "Evo Psych" (or something) to cater for my interest in wider psychological issues. Naturally the contents would be different to 'conventional' evolutionary psychology as Monday's comments on "Rape - an evolutionary strategy?" indicate.

An additional advantage from my point of view is that I would then be able to include comments on the social psychology of 'everyday life'- anyway, I'll see how I feel about it in a few days!

John Latter

technorati tags: irreducible+complexity, evolution, dembski, psychology, rape

Are Human Beings 'Irreducibly Complex'? A whimsical thought...

2006-03-07T20:37:00.000+00:00

I haven't much time at the moment but I'm thinking of uploading Dembski's "Irreducible Complexity Revisited" tomorrow - along with the caveat that doing so doesn't mean I'm a closet creationist!

My perception of the concept is similar to that of Pierre-Paul Grasse who believed 'Internal Factors' were involved in how evolutionary changes occurred - see Grasse, Behe, and "Irreducible Complexity".

No doubt it's a function of tiredness but reading Dembski's Abstract made me wonder if human beings ought to be considered as 'irreducibly complex':

People survive amputations.
Organ transplants are commonplace.
A person in a coma demonstrates the human intellect is not necessary for biological survival.

On the other hand, if anything goes wrong with the older (in evolutionary terms) structures of the brain then the effects are likely to be at least 'global' - if not lethal!

hmm....

John Latter

technorati tags: irreducible+complexity

The proposed Internal Evolutionary Mechanism and 'Cultural Evolution'

2006-03-06T21:36:00.000+00:00

Howard Martin Temin (December 10, 1934 - February 9, 1994) was a U.S. geneticist. He discovered reverse transcriptase in the 1970's at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He won a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1975 for describing how tumor viruses act on the genetical material of the cell through reverse transcriptase. This upset the widely held belief at the time of the "Central Dogma" of molecular biology posited by Nobel laureate Francis Crick, one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA (along with James Watson and Rosalind Franklin). [Answers.com]

In his book "The Great Evolutionary Mystery", Gordon Rattray Taylor also commented on the relevance of Temin's work to the "Central Dogma" and then went on to say:

With the dogma thus modified, the philosophical objection to Lamarckism was removed. What continued to be lacking was a mechanism by which the phenotype change, if any, could generate the information and rtansmit it to the gentic material. It was not simply that no mechanism could be demonstrated, no one could even imagine a way in which it could be done.

The proposed internal evolutionary mechanism is certainly testable but An Error In Associating Lamarck With 'Adaptive Mutations'? indicates why it should not be associated with "Lamarckism", or indeed, any other "ism". The argument for this non-association is only representative of those that could be presented were it considered worthwhile to do so.

Similarly, a single example may suffice to explain why no particular attention will be paid to "Cultural Evolution" other than that relevant to the third of the current Aims:

3) Address those cultural factors which are applicable to answering the question "If an internal evolutionary mechanism exists, then why hasn't it been found before?"

In June of 2001 an EurekaAlert entitled "Rape - an evolutionary strategy?" began:

A SINGLE act of rape may be more than twice as likely to make a woman pregnant as a single act of consensual sex.

That statistic will reopen the hotly contested debate over whether rape can be a successful reproductive strategy in evolutionary terms. It could help to explain why men raping women has been so common throughout history and across cultures, two American researchers told the conference. Previous studies found that rates of pregnancy resulting from rape could be anything up to 30 per cent, compared to a 2 to 4 per cent chance of getting pregnant from a single act of consensual sex. This led some biologists, notably Randy Thornhill from the University of New Mexico at Albuquerque, to parade the figures as evidence that rape is a natural way for men to spread their genes (New Scientist, 19 February 2000, p 44).

Most people (if not all!) who have worked with the victims of sexual violence will say something like "Rape isn't about sex, its about control". Specifically, it is suggested, a need for psychological control stemming from the rapist's own psychology - ie maladjustment to a compounded childhood trauma.

If you were to see a man cross a street one morning then such behaviour would appear perfectly natural. If the same man were to cross the street a few days later, but in the interim had sustained a broken leg, then the change in behavior would obviously be a function of the injury to life that has occurred.

Psychological wounds have the same reality as physical wounds and if behavior becomes a function of an injury to life then there can be no direct relationship with the nature of life itself.

If no consideration is given to the psychology of rapists then possiby the most common reason why rapes occur is being overlooked.

Equally, if a single act of rape "may be more than twice as likely to make a woman pregnant as a single act of consensual sex" then consideration should also be given to how organisms biologically react when 'in extremis'. From Literature Review of Autoerotic Asphyxia and Fatalities:

"An engraving attributed to Durer (c. 1520) depicts a man ejaculating while being hanged in a torture chamber amidst chained skeletons while another prisoner is flogged. Thus the observation that ejaculation may accompany hanging had become known to laymen at least by the early sixteenth century."

Hardly an effective evolutionary strategy!

From a wider perspective the above reflects the belief that "Cultural Evolution" is only worth addressing if the 'noise' generated by psychological trauma is taken into consideration.

John Latter

technorati tags: nobel+prize, central+dogma, lamarckism, adaptive+mutations, rape, psychology

Re: The Internal Evolutionary Mechanism: Basic Concept

2006-03-06T00:05:00.000+00:00

Two posts to the Main Blog today. One (linked above) includes an extract from an existing website describing the basic concept of the proposed internal evolutionary mechanism as it appeared in 1998.

Also included is a flowchart generating the fibonacci series which will be useful in illustrating various aspects of the proposed mechanism.

Both of the above are drawn from existing material and are intended to provide a 'working framework' upon which futher commentary can be based (as per the first of the Aims)

The other Main Blog post is:

Lamarckian mechanisms in Darwinian evolution by Jablonka, Lamb, and Avital.

The first part of the internet day, however, was spent in trying to sort out how this blog was appearing in Internet Explorer and Opera. The problem was solved with a lot less of a headache than usual - but only because of the helpful people at Blogger Forum. Thanks folks!

John Latter

technorati tags: lamarckian, darwinian, fibonacci, mechanism

Why research an 'Internal Evolutionary Mechanism'? (2)

2006-03-04T21:21:00.000+00:00

2) Aims

On November 8, 1996 Richard Dawkins was interviewed by Ben Wattenberg on a PBS "Think Tank" program entitled "Richard Dawkins on Evolution and Religion":

MR. WATTENBERG: You have written that being an atheist allows you to become intellectually fulfilled.
MR. DAWKINS: No, I haven't quite written that. What I have written is that before Darwin, it was difficult to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist and that Darwin made it easy to become an intellectually -- and it's more. It's more. If you wanted to be an atheist, it would have been hard to be an atheist before Darwin came along. But once Darwin came along, the argument from design, which has always been to me the only powerful argument -- even that isn't a very powerful argument, but I used to think it was the only powerful argument for the existence of a creator.
Darwin destroyed the argument from design, at least as far as biology is concerned, which has always been the happiest hunting ground for argument from design. Thereafter -- whereas before Darwin came along, you could have been an atheist, but you'd have been a bit worried, after Darwin you can be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. You can feel, really, now I understand how living things have acquired the illusion of design, I understand why they look as though they've been designed, whereas before Darwin came along, you'd have said, well, I can see that the theory of a divine creator isn't a good theory, but I'm damned if I can think of a better one. After Darwin, you can think of a better one.

Intellectual satisfaction derived from a theory in which the 'loose ends' have all been logically tied up can sometimes be a self-deceptive state of affairs capable of lasting a lifetime.

This is particularly true when the need for a theory stems from an unacknowledged and acquired psychological vulnerability.

In some instances, such vulnerabilities can understandably make an individual predisposed towards believing that dieties exist, and indeed, it is an unfortunate aspect of Society that these predispositions continue to be taken advantage of.

On other occasions, the repression of a vulnerability required in order to maintain a sense of a totally independent 'self' may result in a permanent antipathy towards all forms of religion (rather than, for example, simply responding to the needs of the moment).

By way of contrast, intellectual fulfillment is not a goal in giving consideration to the possibility of an internal evolutionary mechanism because the 'journey' is one of exploration rather than explanation. And therein lies the rub: lack of resources to conduct experiments appropriate to the proposed model!

Consequently, an alternative is to argue the case for such testing to be done. At this moment in time three of the ways this approach is being pursued are:

1) To develop the model indicated by the 'anomalies' referred to in Why research an 'Internal Evolutionary Mechanism'? (1) - and hopefully avoid the pitfalls inherent in doing so!

2) Identify those evolutionary phenomena the model is initially most applicable to.

3) Address those cultural factors which are applicable to answering the question "If an internal evolutionary mechanism exists, then why hasn't it been found before?"

Emphasis on any one of the above areas will simply be a function of the exigencies of the moment!

John Latter

technorati tags: internal+evolutionary+mechanism, richard+dawkins, religion, evolution, darwin, atheist, design

Bits and Pieces

2006-03-03T22:24:00.000+00:00

Mundane stuff:

About a week ago I added a "Daily Updates" email feature to the sidebar and today I've added a Guestbook.

In the next few weeks I'll be adding "Add to furl" and "Add to del.icio.us." options along with a search engine for all five categories (the "search this blog" feature in the top left-hand corner only searches the 'category' you are in).

Other than that, I'm calling a temporary halt to 'site maintenance': Google, other search engines, and various blog bots visit this site and learning how to tidy up the code to attract more would just take up too much time (and it's such hard work for someone like me!).

Of slightly more interest:

The evomech calendar contains the schedules for the following internet science/philosophy programs:

Berkeley Groks [USA]
In Our Time [UK]
Philosophy Talk [USA]
Quirks & Quarks [CAN]
Science Friday [USA]
Science Show [AUS]
The Naked Scientists [UK]

I don't bother keeping up with 'what's on this week' - what I like to do is click on the program archive links every so often and then listen to something while working!

Of more relevance:

Modularity and sense organs in the blind cavefish was posted to the Main Blog today and I hope to begin posting more info regarding the proposed internal evolutionary mechanism soon.

John Latter

technorati tags: furl, del.icio.us, google, blog, science, philosophy, programs

In the News: More info on "'Jurassic Beaver' find stuns experts"

2006-03-03T08:36:00.000+00:00

Anyone who read the recent 'Jurassic Beaver' find stuns experts news report might be interested in the following:

Perspective:

Early Mammalian Evolutionary Experiments
Thomas Martin*

Mammals of the Mesozoic era (248 to 65 million years ago) generally are considered to be primitive, shrew-like creatures living in the shadow of the dinosaurs (1). Only after the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous era (144 to 65 million years ago) did they have a chance to explore a greater variety of ecological niches. During the adaptive radiation that began about 65 million years ago, mammals were able to invade all kinds of terrestrial environments, even the aquatic and aerial realms. Pushing back the mammalian conquest of the waters by more than 100 million years, Ji et al. (2) report on page 1123 of this issue a Middle Jurassic, 164-million-year-old skeleton with a beaverlike tail and seal-like teeth perfectly adapted for an aquatic lifestyle.

and

Research Article the above Perspective refers to:

A Swimming Mammaliaform from the Middle Jurassic and Ecomorphological Diversification of Early Mammals
Qiang Ji,1,3 Zhe-Xi Luo,2,1* Chong-Xi Yuan,3 Alan R. Tabrum2

A docodontan mammaliaform from the Middle Jurassic of China possesses swimming and burrowing skeletal adaptations and some dental features for aquatic feeding. It is the most primitive taxon in the mammalian lineage known to have fur and has a broad, flattened, partly scaly tail analogous to that of modern beavers. We infer that docodontans were semiaquatic, convergent to the modern platypus and many Cenozoic placentals. This fossil demonstrates that some mammaliaforms, or proximal relatives to modern mammals, developed diverse locomotory and feeding adaptations and were ecomorphologically different from the majority of generalized small terrestrial Mesozoic mammalian insectivores.

The links work OK but email me if you have any problems (I made a typo on the research article url and got "We've redesigned our Web site, and some Carnegie Museum of Natural History pages have gone the way of the dinosaurs."!)

John Latter

technorati tags: jurassic, cretaceous, beaver, shrew, china, aquatic, fossil, dinosaurs

Re: TalkOrigins resource on Atavisms and Vestigial Structures

2006-03-02T22:01:00.000+00:00

After yesterday's brief comments on Atavisms (Retrograde Motion and Evolution) I came across a TalkOrigins resource on Atavisms and Vestigial Organs/Structures (which are another area of interest) and have posted it to the Main Blog.

The page is directly accessible from here and contains the following:

1. Anatomical vestigial structures
* Answers to criticisms of vestigial structures
1. Vestiges can have functions
2. Positive evidence demonstrates lack of functionality
3. Negative evidence is scientific when controlled
2. Atavisms
* Living whales with hindlimbs
* Newborn babies with tails
3. Molecular vestigial structures
4. Ontogeny and developmental biology
* Mammalian ear bones and reptile jaws
* Pharyngeal pouches and branchial arches
* Snake and whale embryos and with legs
* Embryonic human tail
* Marsupial eggshell and caruncle
5. Present biogeography
6. Past biogeography
* Marsupials
* Horses
* Apes and humans

And now for something completely different! San Franscisco's Exploratorium will be providing a live webcast of March 29th's total solar eclipse, info available here.

John Latter

technorati tags: atavisms, vestigial+organs, talkorigins, exploratorium, evolution, solar+eclipse, whales

Retrograde Motion and Evolution

2006-03-01T22:24:00.000+00:00

A webpage on Retrograde Motion at Philadelphia's Lasalle University states:

One phenomenon that ancient astronomers had difficulty explaining was the retrograde motion of the planets...

...a planet appears to move from West to East against the background stars most of the time...

...Occasionally, however, the planet's motion will appear to reverse direction, and the planet will, for a short time, move from East to West against the background constellations. This reversal is known as retrograde motion.

Ptolemaic Explanation

This model consisted of a series of concentric spheres, with the Earth at the center...

...To account for the observed retrograde motion of the planets, it was necessary to resort to a system of epicycles, whereby the planets moved around small circular paths that in turn moved around larger circular orbits around the Earth...

...In its final form, the model was extremely complicated, requiring many nested levels of epicycles (etc.).

Copernican Explanation

Copernicus replaced the geocentric universe of Ptolemy with one that was centered on the Sun (heliocentric), with only the Moon orbiting the Earth. His model was still based on circular orbits (and therefore still required further refinement), but it was able to achieve superior precision than the Ptolemaic model without the need for epicycles or other complications. [My emphasis]

If the proposal of an internal evolutionary mechanism is seen as a Copernican expansion upon the Ptolemaic modern synthesis, then in terms of explanatory power alone, obvious areas to zero in on would be any evolutionary equivalents to retrograde motion.

Evolutionary atavisms are among such suitable candidates and have been brought to the fore (for a day or two at least!) by John F. Fallon's kind response to a request for a copy of The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant.

In the near future I hope to post a brief explanation of how the proposed mechanism could account for the phenomena reported in the above paper. It won't be definitive but it should make 'operation' of the mechanism a little clearer.

Finally, the 'old' chinese proverb "A picture is worth a thousand words" (apparantly coined as "A Picture's Meaning Can Express Ten Thousand Words" as part of an ad campaign in 1927!) is clearly shown by the two animated gifs on the Lasalle webpage demonstrating the difference between the Ptolemaic and Copernican explanations of retrograde motion.

John Latter

technorati tags: retrograde+motion, modern+synthesis, planets, epicycles, chicken, teeth, lasalle

Re: Common objections to 'Internal Evolutionary Mechanisms' (1)

2006-02-28T20:59:00.000+00:00

The above link will take you to today's Main Blog post. It begins:

Brief notes on four common objections to current or historical proposals of internal evolutionary mechanisms (if you can think of any more then please leave a comment or email me):

1) Internal Evolutionary Mechanisms are 'Mystical'
2) Internal Evolutionary Mechanisms are 'Lamarckian'
3) "Populations Evolve, Individuals Do Not"
4) Weismann's experiment with Rodents

Naturally enough, as soon as I clicked on 'publish post' I immediately thought of another! But it can wait for another day - I'm still spending quite a lot of time on various blog-related problems and learning how to add additional features.

nb I've used An Error In Associating Lamarck With 'Adaptive Mutations'?
as a 'response' to #2 - the principle of "Words frozen in time should be differentiated from those carved in stone" being applicable to just about anything one might care to think of.

John Latter

technorati tags: evolutionary+mechanism, internal, lamarck, weismann

In the News: Reverse/Backward Human Evolution

2006-02-27T18:13:00.000+00:00

General Evolution News contains a follow up news article (Claim of reversed human evolution provokes skepticism, interest) to last week's 'Backward evolution' spawns ape-like people

I came across this paper today and thought I'ld post it in case anyone would like more info:

Human hand-walkers : five siblings who never stood up

Abstract

Human beings begin life as quadrupeds, crawling on all fours, but none has ever been known to retain this gait and develop it into a proficient replacement for adult bipedality. We report the case of a family in which five siblings, who suffer from a rare form of cerebellar ataxia, are still quadrupeds as adults - walking and running on their feet and wrists. We describe the remarkable features of this gait, discuss how it has developed in the members of this family, and consider whether a similar gait may have been used by human ancestors.

John Latter

technorati tags: human, evolution, ape-like, reverse, backward, ancestors