On Darwin and his influence

Survival of the fittest was actually coined by an economist, Herbert Spencer after reading Darwin's 1859 publishing of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

A most notable influence was on that of Sigmund Freud. Freud had all of Darwin's books and even large portions of his contribution to psychology can have the threads of Darwinian theories.

Although Darwin never coined the term "survival of the fittest," the impact of his research and writing have obvious influence in the notion that all species moved forward on the backs of the "fittest." In other words, through natural selection our ancestors have passed forward the more favorable genes/traits for us to live successfully.

These ideas will change, look for a new book coming out in the next 3-5 years. ~RPA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdmsf

Survival of the fittest was actually coined by an economist, Herbert Spencer after reading Darwin's 1859 publishing of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

A most notable influence was on that of Sigmund Freud. Freud had all of Darwin's books and even large portions of his contribution to psychology can have the threads of Darwinian theories.

Although Darwin never coined the term "survival of the fittest," the impact of his research and writing have obvious influence in the notion that all species moved forward on the backs of the "fittest." In other words, through natural selection our ancestors have passed forward the more favorable genes/traits for us to live successfully.

These ideas will change, look for a new book coming out in the next 3-5 years. ~RPA

---

You make the mistake many Darwinists make, which is, that "stronger" genes implies a forward movement. There is no such implication. Strength is an attribute, like white or tiny. It has nothing to do with motion. So Darwin's idea that strength produced movement is simply false. There is no reason to believe that natural selection, as explained, would not go backwards or sideways, whatever. "Forward" is mere speculation on his and on your part for repeating it. This does not imply that everything he found is false, or that I believe in six days of creation. Just that the implication of movement is not true.

Al

Darwin did not say anything about stronger genes (notably he did not know about Mendel's research in inheritance). Darwinian fitness is misunderstood here by both of you. Darwinian fitness is the ability of an individual to survive and reproduce in any given environment, it is not fitness in the colloquial sense of strength. Moreover, certain traits may be more fit or less fit depending on any environmental factor, which is why diversification of species occurs. Natural selection is an explanation of why some genes that appear within a population can come to be predominant over time, and how this process can lead to the emergence of new species.

The OP contains a significant misunderstanding of Darwinism. It is not progressive, Darwin proposed the basic truth that species better adapted to an environment will be more likely to survive and reproduce in that environment. Selection is not random but it is directional only in the loosest metaphorical sense. It is not prescient of possible changes to the environment that might render one trait previously adaptive into a maladaptive one. For example, bacteria which are resistant to beta-lactam inhibitors like penicillin expend more energy producing more complex cell walls, and thus are generally less fit than the non-resistant bacteria, but once you had penicillin to the mix, those resistant bacteria take over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Selection is not random but it is directional only in the loosest metaphorical sense. It is not prescient of possible changes to the environment that might render one trait previously adaptive into a maladaptive one. For example, bacteria which are resistant to beta-lactam inhibitors like penicillin expend more energy producing more complex cell walls, and thus are generally less fit than the non-resistant bacteria, but once you had penicillin to the mix, those resistant bacteria take over.

---

This past week, I found out about "adaptive mutation": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_mutation In the notes there is reference to this article by Patricia L. Foster that I've been slowly trying to make sense out of since the terminology is still foreign to me: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989722/

I suppose this relates to the OP in the sense that it is about evolution and being fit enough to survive. It looks like not just the best fit organisms survive, but those able to generate suitable mutations in response to the new environment survive. The stress comes first, then some of the individuals in the species initiate hypermutation and that allows the species finding a suitable mutation to survive. If that is true, I can see how evolution could have happened in the time frame of life on earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

This past week, I found out about "adaptive mutation": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_mutation In the notes there is reference to this article by Patricia L. Foster that I've been slowly trying to make sense out of since the terminology is still foreign to me: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989722/

I suppose this relates to the OP in the sense that it is about evolution and being fit enough to survive. It looks like not just the best fit organisms survive, but those able to generate suitable mutations in response to the new environment survive. The stress comes first, then some of the individuals in the species initiate hypermutation and that allows the species finding a suitable mutation to survive. If that is true, I can see how evolution could have happened in the time frame of life on earth.

---

I don't see how. These processes in micro-organisms, which are poorly understood and could still be artifacts of the experiments, are themselves the product of natural selection. Also, I don't see what problem there is with the timeframe available for life to evolve on earth, the only objections to that I've ever seen have been arbitrary projections made by creationists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

I don't see how. These processes in micro-organisms, which are poorly understood and could still be artifacts of the experiments, are themselves the product of natural selection. Also, I don't see what problem there is with the timeframe available for life to evolve on earth, the only objections to that I've ever seen have been arbitrary projections made by creationists.

---

I am aware that Christians such as Behe have made models that show that evolution through chance mutations could not have happened in the given time frame. Do you know of any counter arguments to them that show that these chance mutations could have happened in the given time frame without claiming that we were just really, really lucky.

I'm motivated by comments made by Thomas Nagel in Mind and Cosmos in which he seems to accept the improbability that people like Behe have presented. Here is a brief summary of the book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_and_Cosmos

We don't have to be really lucky, the improbability models used by ID proponents are just bad math that misrepresents evolution. Frequent tactics used are calculating the time based on the assumption that evolution is sequential rather than parallel. Another common tactic is ignoring the impact of multiple individuals in any generation. Genetic algorithms have no problem accommodating for evolution in the time available.

Thanks. Which source would you use to best show that we don't have to be really lucky. I would like to check it out.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/22454.full

http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/cours...ilsson1994.pdf

There's not many people writing about it because there simply isn't a controversy about the time required for structures to evolve, there was plenty of time for things to evolve not only once, but multiple times as we see convergent and parallel evolution between different species.

Thanks. I'll check them out.

Apparently there is a controversy. At the beginning of the first article by Wilf and Ewens is the following:

One of the main objections that have been raised holds that there has not been enough time for all of the species complexity that we see to have evolved by random mutations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Darwin did not say anything about stronger genes (notably he did not know about Mendel's research in inheritance). Darwinian fitness is misunderstood here by both of you. Darwinian fitness is the ability of an individual to survive and reproduce in any given environment, it is not fitness in the colloquial sense of strength. Moreover, certain traits may be more fit or less fit depending on any environmental factor, which is why diversification of species occurs. Natural selection is an explanation of why some genes that appear within a population can come to be predominant over time, and how this process can lead to the emergence of new species.

The OP contains a significant misunderstanding of Darwinism. It is not progressive, Darwin proposed the basic truth that species better adapted to an environment will be more likely to survive and reproduce in that environment. Selection is not random but it is directional only in the loosest metaphorical sense. It is not prescient of possible changes to the environment that might render one trait previously adaptive into a maladaptive one. For example, bacteria which are resistant to beta-lactam inhibitors like penicillin expend more energy producing more complex cell walls, and thus are generally less fit than the non-resistant bacteria, but once you had penicillin to the mix, those resistant bacteria take over.

---

You're confusing development or adaptation as some inheritable direction, progressive, whatever. This is speculation, also false. Darwin's take on evolution infers direction of genes toward species, that genes move toward a goal, a species, new species, as in "descent with modification." Again, there is no reason why the genetic "progress" isn't backwards, or any direction at all. Just because a gene survives means nothing. It's the claim that a gene mutates that matters, adapts, and toward a species. That it is through a process he called natural selection is not a direction. If so, explain how genes don't just survive but actually move in a certain direction and why. Again, survival is not a direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by os2al

You're confusing development or adaptation as some inheritable direction, progressive, whatever. This is speculation, also false. Darwin's take on evolution infers direction of genes toward species, that genes move toward a goal, a species, new species, as in "descent with modification." Again, there is no reason why the genetic "progress" isn't backwards, or any direction at all. Just because a gene survives means nothing. It's the claim that a gene mutates that matters, adapts, and toward a species. That it is through a process he called natural selection is not a direction. If so, explain how genes don't just survive but actually move in a certain direction and why. Again, survival is not a direction.

---

I'm trying to make sense out of this. The survival of the gene means nothing makes sense to me. What moves evolution is at a level higher than the gene, as I see it. Also there should be an emphasis on "species" rather than gene, higher than the individual organism, to best describe evolution.

What keeps me interested in this topic are the issues raised by Thomas Nagel in Mind and Cosmos. OrphanPip provided some links claiming that evolution by chance could have actually happened. I am still sorting through them, but I wonder if that model actually represents evolution. I'm not sure.

Niles Eldredge, in Reinventing Darwin, also has objections to neo-Darwinism or "ultra-Darwinism" as he calls it. As a paleontologist he, like Gould, is interested in species rather than a smooth change of genes over time by chance. What is missing in neo-Darwinism is the "equilibrium" and the emphasis on the species rather than the genes inside the organism. The research by Patricia Foster seems to show a non-smooth genetic change in E. coli when stress is introduced as well as a communal response, that is, not all of the individual cells engaged in hypermutation, only a small fraction of them, as if they were coordinating their efforts to respond to the change in their environment when a food source was replaced with something they were not used to eating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I'm trying to make sense out of this. The survival of the gene means nothing makes sense to me. What moves evolution is at a level higher than the gene, as I see it. Also there should be an emphasis on "species" rather than gene, higher than the individual organism, to best describe evolution.

What keeps me interested in this topic are the issues raised by Thomas Nagel in Mind and Cosmos. OrphanPip provided some links claiming that evolution by chance could have actually happened. I am still sorting through them, but I wonder if that model actually represents evolution. I'm not sure.

Niles Eldredge, in Reinventing Darwin, also has objections to neo-Darwinism or "ultra-Darwinism" as he calls it. As a paleontologist he, like Gould, is interested in species rather than a smooth change of genes over time by chance. What is missing in neo-Darwinism is the "equilibrium" and the emphasis on the species rather than the genes inside the organism. The research by Patricia Foster seems to show a non-smooth genetic change in E. coli when stress is introduced as well as a communal response, that is, not all of the individual cells engaged in hypermutation, only a small fraction of them, as if they were coordinating their efforts to respond to the change in their environment when a food source was replaced with something they were not used to eating.

---

I'm questioning the idea that evolution can work without inherent direction, which Nagel appears to address by the title of his book (though I haven't read it). I'm no believer in random evolution, obviously, or evolution as often taught. Are there various processes at work in nature? Surely, there seems to be. I see the situation as similar to having a body, which is kind of a machine with functioning processes: we don't worry about breathing, it happens without our concern; nor do we have to monitor that blood flows through the veins, or that the heart pumps. What makes life meaningful is that we use the body, the machine, if you will, to accomplish things, which gives meaning to life. Without conscious direction, life means nothing, nor can one accomplish anything useful.

So I don't see how any system in nature could operate without what one might call an inherent directive nature. Plants move toward the light and water. Evidence shows plants can understand their surroundings as well; something internal exists even in plants, never mind animals. And so on. Thus, to me genes would simply go in no particular direction without an inherent directive nature of some kind. That's why I started commenting, and it may not even have been something you said. So don't worry, it might just be me. I'll have to read the Nagel book now. Best,

I don't believe in random evolution either. I also agree with you about plants, however, I have tried recently to avoid using a machine metaphor to describe nature since I don't think nature is deterministic, only pseudo-deterministic.

Do you have any references that you would recommend? I'm just trying to figure these ideas out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Thanks. I'll check them out.

Apparently there is a controversy. At the beginning of the first article by Wilf and Ewens is the following:

One of the main objections that have been raised holds that there has not been enough time for all of the species complexity that we see to have evolved by random mutations.

---

I think you misunderstood his statement about controversy. The matter is a lot like global warming; there is no controversy about the matter among scientists. Among the general public and evolution "opponents", that is a different issue. Once in a while scientists will write a paper aimed at giving a demonstration of "debated" principles for non-scientists to help them understand, but generally Behe et. al.'s views (and papers) produce little more than an eye roll among most scientists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Star

I think you misunderstood his statement about controversy. The matter is a lot like global warming; there is no controversy about the matter among scientists. Among the general public and evolution "opponents", that is a different issue. Once in a while scientists will write a paper aimed at giving a demonstration of "debated" principles for non-scientists to help them understand, but generally Behe et. al.'s views (and papers) produce little more than an eye roll among most scientists.

---

The people I am reading, Eldredge and Foster, are scientists and there are controversies, like it or not.

I have yet to read Behe, but I have read Nagel who is an atheist philosophy who has this to say about the way neo-Darwinists treat people like Behe:

Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer , the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.

Nagel, Thomas (2012-08-29). Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (pp. 10-11). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

I agree with Nagel.

Let me put in my two cents to try to clarify a couple of the sub-topics here.

On direction in evolution: Mutations at the molecular level take place all the time. Most mutations are a random change in one of the base-pairs (a single point mutation) of a DNA (or RNA) molecule that codes for a specific protein. The mutation can be caused by exposure to ultra-violet light, by radiation, exposure to certain chemicals, and other causes, not all of which are fully understood.

The effect of the mutation is usually a very minor change to a particular protein produced by the organism. The larger and more complex the organism is, the more unlikely that a single mutation affecting a single protein will have any effect at all on the organism’s ability to survive or to reproduce. Indeed, whether we are talking about a bacterium or a mammal, the vast majority of genetic mutations have no noticeable effect. Among the very few percent of mutations that do affect the organism as a whole, the effect will be adverse or harmful most of the time. If the effect is such that the organism does not survive before it reproduces, the mutation is deleted from the species’ gene pool. Some adverse mutations can be harmful, but not lethal and can be passed on to future generations. A well-known example of this kind of adverse, non-lethal single point mutation in humans is found in sickle-cell anemia.

There can be very rare occasions when a mutation causes a change to a protein that affects the organism in a beneficial way. Examples would be a mutation that would allow a plant to be more resistant to herbicides or a mutation that would allow a bacterium to be resistant to penicillin. Under normal environmental conditions, neither one of these mutations would have any noticeable effect on the organism. However, if the environmental conditions changed - if herbicides were introduced into the plant’s environment or if penicillin was introduced into the bacterium’s environment, then the individuals with the genetic mutations would have a better chance to survive and reproduce than other individuals of their species which do not share the mutation. The changes in the environment I describe here do not cause the genetic mutations to take place; the genetic mutations take place independently of the environment, but the new, changed environmental conditions allow for the genetic mutations to be expressed and to be passed on to future generations.

So even though mutations occur in a random fashion that usually result in either no noticeable effects or adverse effects, a combination of the occurrence of random mutations and environmental change can eventually lead to genetic changes that are beneficial, resulting in individuals more fit to survive and reproduce under the changed environmental conditions. This was Darwin’s notion of “natural selection” (or Herbert Spencer’s “survival of the fittest”), and this is the reason that, while on the microscopic level, genetic mutations occur randomly, on the macroscopic level, evolution shows “direction.”

On evolutionary timeframe: When I got my BS in Microbiology nearly three decades ago, there were many scientists who, while adhering to the concept of natural selection, were at a loss to explain the wide variety of species of life on earth that had evolved in the relatively short timeframe of life on earth. There were possible explanations - the possibility of more intense ultraviolet rays in the atmosphere during the earliest periods of life on earth, the possibility of increased levels of mutagenic chemicals in water or soils, and these, coupled with environmental changes could account for an accelerated pace of evolution in earth’s early history - but this was indeed a controversial topic back in the day.

Some religious types seized on the controversy about the evolutionary timeframe to try to de-bunk Darwinism, and in fact the whole concept of Intelligent Design was born from this controversy. I was very interested to hear OrphanPip assert that scientists now agree that there was plenty of time for life to evolve on earth as it has. I’m not sure if there really is the scientific consensus that OrphanPip asserts, but I have been out of touch with genetic science for many years now, so I have not kept up with the latest thinking, and OrphanPip seems to have a good understanding of the topic. (Thanks for the links, OrphanPip; I’ll have a look at them when I have time.) I know there is a lot of mathematical work being done with algorithms and fractals as they relate to biological systems, including genetics, but I just have not kept up with the latest thinking on the issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 108 fountains

Some religious types seized on the controversy about the evolutionary timeframe to try to de-bunk Darwinism, and in fact the whole concept of Intelligent Design was born from this controversy. I was very interested to hear OrphanPip assert that scientists now agree that there was plenty of time for life to evolve on earth as it has. I’m not sure if there really is the scientific consensus that OrphanPip asserts, but I have been out of touch with genetic science for many years now, so I have not kept up with the latest thinking, and OrphanPip seems to have a good understanding of the topic. (Thanks for the links, OrphanPip; I’ll have a look at them when I have time.) I know there is a lot of mathematical work being done with algorithms and fractals as they relate to biological systems, including genetics, but I just have not kept up with the latest thinking on the issues.

---

I don't have a conclusion yet about OrphanPip's references primarily because I don't understand the issues well enough, but I am hoping to remedy that misunderstanding.

Let's forget the religion issue. Characterizing opponents as "religious types" sounds like the scorn that Nagel justly objects to.

The time frame is not the only controversy.

There is also the controversy with Eldredge and Gould's punctuated equilibrium. How do you view that? My reference is Eldredge's Reinventing Darwin. The fossil data does not support the smooth, random change that neo-Darwinist theory requires.

There is also the research on hypermutation that Foster presented. That is lab data that does not support the smooth, random change that neo-Darwinist theory requires. It also shows what looks like cooperative behavior since only a few of the organisms engaged in the individually dangerous process of hypermutation when stressed by a lack of an expected food source. How do you view this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I don't have a conclusion yet about OrphanPip's references primarily because I don't understand the issues well enough, but I am hoping to remedy that misunderstanding.

Let's forget the religion issue. Characterizing opponents as "religious types" sounds like the scorn that Nagel justly objects to.

The time frame is not the only controversy.

There is also the controversy with Eldredge and Gould's punctuated equilibrium. How do you view that? My reference is Eldredge's Reinventing Darwin. The fossil data does not support the smooth, random change that neo-Darwinist theory requires.

There is also the research on hypermutation that Foster presented. That is lab data that does not support the smooth, random change that neo-Darwinist theory requires. It also shows what looks like cooperative behavior since only a few of the organisms engaged in the individually dangerous process of hypermutation when stressed by a lack of an expected food source. How do you view this?

---

These are all valid and well-considered points. My earlier post referred specifically to point mutations, but there are other types of genetic mutations that can affect more than just a single point in the in the DNA base-pairing sequence - insertion of viral DNA into a chromosome, other types of frame-shift mutations, heritable epigenetic changes, multiple point mutations caused by ultraviolet or other radiation or mutagenic chemicals, or even damage to the physical structure of the chromosome during meiosis. Theoretically, I suppose, such mutations could account for some instances of punctuated equilibrium, but I think that is unlikely since these types of mutations are (almost) always harmful. It seems more likely to me that evolutionary “jumps” are/were caused by point mutations that affect proteins involved in processes having to do with cell differentiation and embryonic development. -- This type of discussion can go very technical very quickly, and I don’t have the technical knowledge to go much further, but I know that research is ongoing, and I’ll trust to the scientific method that we will eventually find the answers.

I don’t believe that evolution proceeded uniformly. It seems logical, and likely, to me that evolution proceeded in the “fits and starts” suggested by punctuated equilibrium or “quantum” evolution. But I have not read about or heard of a completely satisfactory explanation of the mechanisms that would cause evolution to proceed that way. It seems logical to me that extreme environmental change, which has occurred at various times in earth’s history, is part of the answer, but not the complete answer.

I’ll be the first to admit that, like the gaps between observed species, there are gaps in our knowledge of the evolutionary process. Personally, I would even be willing to give up on the theory of evolution entirely, if an alternative was available based on evidence, logic and objectivity. But as yet, there is no such alternative available. It seems likely to me that evolution, despite imperfections in our knowledge of it, is in fact the process of how life has developed on earth, and that our understanding of that process will proceed as we learn more.

I wouldn't want to give up on evolution either. There does seem to be structural similarities between different species justifying something that could be called evolution. There is something connecting us.

Although I don't have the technical knowledge, but I do like puzzles.