04 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJaySomehow I didn´t really believe I´d get the last word.
Not running from this thread, just have limited time to give it.
Kelly
I found an interesting reference which is reference 18 on the Wikipedia page on predation, which essentially claims that much of evolution is driven by an arms race between predators and prey. Here is the reference for the interested: http://www.nrm.se/download/18.4e32c81078a8d9249800021552/Bengtson2002predation.pdf
05 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThought🙂
Somehow I didn´t really believe I´d get the last word.
I found an interesting reference which is reference 18 on the Wikipedia page on predation, which essentially claims that much of evolution is driven by an arms race between predators and prey. Here is the reference for the interested: http://www.nrm.se/download/18.4e32c81078a8d9249800021552/Bengtson2002predation.pdf
I'll read it this weekend thanks.
Kelly
06 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI have not completed the article but it did bring up a couple of
Somehow I didn´t really believe I´d get the last word.
I found an interesting reference which is reference 18 on the Wikipedia page on predation, which essentially claims that much of evolution is driven by an arms race between predators and prey. Here is the reference for the interested: http://www.nrm.se/download/18.4e32c81078a8d9249800021552/Bengtson2002predation.pdf
questions for me nonetheless, exactly how did life first learn it needed
to eat something to survive? I recall watching a ‘so called’ experiment
in software where they designed a software creature that programmed
to evolve into something better than it was before. I remember they
had to cheat to give it eyes, since it never took the bait of light and
darkness to grow its own eyes. Now, thinking about that program and
have a small amount of program experience myself, how did the first
life forms learn to eat too? What was it that life ate, but more
importantly why would it, it doesn’t know it needs food, it does not
know it is hungry, it doesn’t do anything outside of the process it was
programmed to do?
Kelly
06 Mar 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasSo what? I don't care what you believe about me, again you leave
I don't believe you have any deep understanding of programming...
the process of evolution to talk about side issues! You bring up
God, you question me personally, but you don't just stick to the
process.
Kelly
07 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayIt´s difficult to imagine a program where they can put in enough degrees of freedom to get everything to work.
I have not completed the article but it did bring up a couple of
questions for me nonetheless, exactly how did life first learn it needed
to eat something to survive? I recall watching a ‘so called’ experiment
in software where they designed a software creature that programmed
to evolve into something better than it was before. I remember they
had to c ...[text shortened]... now it is hungry, it doesn’t do anything outside of the process it was
programmed to do?
Kelly
On the issue of how eating starts, I see your point. Really we need an expert for this stuff. All cells need raw materials of some form, the primary producers, chemo-autotrophs need chemicals to reduce and photo-autotrophs still need water and CO_2 to go with their sunlight. If we assume (have to for this bit) that pre-cellular life occurs in regions with abundant raw materials for copying themselves, then when the first cells formed they would need some way for the raw materials to get through the cell wall, which might initially just be diffusion. Cells that can control that process better have a clear fitness advantage and it can get more sophisticated with time, until you start getting cells that can predate smaller cells.
I think it´s a case of some small steps, which when added together produce a large qualitative shift. Not a great answer, but there you are.
07 Mar 09
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay….exactly how did life first LEARN it NEEDED
I have not completed the article but it did bring up a couple of
questions for me nonetheless, exactly how did life first learn it needed
to eat something to survive? I recall watching a ‘so called’ experiment
in software where they designed a software creature that programmed
to evolve into something better than it was before. I remember they
had to c ...[text shortened]... now it is hungry, it doesn’t do anything outside of the process it was
programmed to do?
Kelly
to eat something to survive?
..… (my emphasis)
With the exception of the more intelligent animals, it never did! What do you mean? are you talking here about plants or animals or bacteria etc first “LEARNING” it “NEEDED” to eat?
For starters, a life form without a brain generally “LEARNS” nothing!
But even animals with a brain, with some possible exceptions only for the most intelligent species, generally doesn’t learn to know it “NEEDS” food. Does a worm “know” it “needs” food?
….but more
importantly why would it, it doesn’t KNOW it NEEDS food, it does not
know it is hungry….
..… (my emphasis)
-those that don’t eat die and thus don’t pass on those genes while those that do eat do pass on their genes -so any inheritable characteristic that makes an animal not eat until it starves is not passed on to the next generation which is why animals generally do eat.
Thus whether or not they “KNOW they NEED food” has nothing do with it.
07 Mar 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI think Kelly knows this. I think the confusion is caused by the word ¨know¨ - it´s ended up being used in two senses. By ¨know to eat¨ what Kelly really means is ¨exhibits a behaviour¨, not knowledge in the human (or at least vertebrate) sense. You have to translate Kelly´s question from ¨how does the bug know it has to eat?¨ into what it is, a short hand for ¨How does a complicated behaviour evolve in a single celled creature given that the cell has to evolve multiple adaptations to engulf and digest it´s prey? The size of the phenotypic shift required seems rather large to me.¨ Given that that´s a bit of a mouthful 😉 it´s fair enough to use a short form.
[b]….exactly how did life first LEARN it NEEDED
to eat something to survive?
..… (my emphasis)
With the exception of the more intelligent animals, it never did! What do you mean? are you talking here about plants or animals or bacteria etc first “LEARNING” it “NEEDED” to eat?
For starters, a life form without a brain generally “LEARNS” n ...[text shortened]... imals generally do eat.
Thus whether or not they “KNOW they NEED food” has nothing do with it.[/b]
07 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayWhen you say you have programming experience, and yet show you don't understand programming, then I don't believe you.
So what? I don't care what you believe about me, again you leave
the process of evolution to talk about side issues! You bring up
God, you question me personally, but you don't just stick to the
process.
Kelly
That's the answer to your question "So what?"
By this behaviour you mislead people into thinking that you have knowledge enough in programming and science so you are qualified to have anything more than mere opinions about the topics, is fraud.
07 Mar 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasAgain, side issues.
When you say you have programming experience, and yet show you don't understand programming, then I don't believe you.
That's the answer to your question "So what?"
By this behaviour you mislead people into thinking that you have knowledge enough in programming and science so you are qualified to have anything more than mere opinions about the topics, is fraud.
Kelly
07 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe point as you correctly seen is that it all has to be programmed
I think Kelly knows this. I think the confusion is caused by the word ¨know¨ - it´s ended up being used in two senses. By ¨know to eat¨ what Kelly really means is ¨exhibits a behaviour¨, not knowledge in the human (or at least vertebrate) sense. You have to translate Kelly´s question from ¨how does the bug know it has to eat?¨ into what it is, ...[text shortened]... er large to me.¨ Given that that´s a bit of a mouthful 😉 it´s fair enough to use a short form.
into the life form from the start. Not only are we dealing with the
basic structure of life itself, but its behavior as well, what does it
do and why? All of these questions are being accepted as not such
a big deal, simply a small piece of the puzzle that we are sure there
are answers for. To add more complexity to the equation we also
have to have the brand new life form that was put together without
a design or intent get put together in an environment that not only
stays habitable to the point that the new life form can not only
survive, but thrive and through time become more complex, having
more behaviors, getting more new structures, again without anyone,
or anything over seeing this whole process or environment.
Kelly
07 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayI´m not sure I agree with the statement ¨it all has to be programmed in at the start¨ as representing what I said in the post I made replying to yours (rather than the one replying to Andrew Hamilton´s post). To be clear are you talking about the computer model, or the real thing?
The point as you correctly seen is that it all has to be programmed
into the life form from the start. Not only are we dealing with the
basic structure of life itself, but its behavior as well, what does it
do and why? All of these questions are being accepted as not such
a big deal, simply a small piece of the puzzle that we are sure there
are answer ...[text shortened]... ctures, again without anyone,
or anything over seeing this whole process or environment.
Kelly
If the former then it depends on implementation details of the model that a documentary TV program isn´t going to tell you.
If the latter, then I think that the first living cells were probably a response to a worsening environment. What follows is somewhat speculative, there isn´t a commonly accepted standard model for this. My intention is to outline a plausible sequence of events to show that you could get more complicated behaviours develop from very simple initial structures.
Within the RNA world hypothesis what seems to have happened is that the ancestors of the first cells were auto-catalyzing RNA molecules which randomly became trapped inside lipid membranes. Lipid bi-layers are known to form spontaneously. This can easily evolve into a ¨deliberate¨ colonization strategy. The advantage for the colonizers is that as they use up the free building blocks that get trapped with them in the bi-layer more raw materials get pulled through the bi-layer by the drop in concentration inside the proto-cell. The RNA molecules then get a survival advantage if they can ¨manage¨ their immediate environment. If the external environment changes the free auto-catalyzers all die, so the ones that can control what´s going on in the cell membranes don´t rely on the external environment being ideal and survive environmental change.
Reproduction initially involved the membrane growing or bursting - the RNA molecules are colonizing something which then bursts and disperses them like with viruses, or just fissions as the bi-layer gets larger like with cell based life.
Being able to control the cell membrane is an adaptation as there is an obvious survival advantage if the external environment changes. The various internal parts are protected by the lipid bi-layer and the RNA that can regulate its environment best has an advantage compared with RNA that doesn´t manage the transport properties of the host bi-layer.
Reproduction stops being a matter of chance as the fissioning process develops into recognizable mitosis, and bi-layer bursting turns into viral invasion and reproduction. The driving force behind this is the environment changing so that being able to control your immediate environment goes from desirable to essential. The RNA that survives is the RNA that codes for protein structures in the bi-layer, for the bi-layer itself, and for control over the fissioning process as well as coding for copying itself.
The bi-layer has to allow transport of the basic chemicals that the various pseudo-living molecules that colonize it need to reproduce themselves. This does not mean that full endocytosis necessarily has to exist with the first cells, it can be a later adaptation as the nascent organisms are put under environmental pressures.
I agree that how these things can come about is not a trivial question. What I´ve outlined is a way that cells could have developed more structure as a response to a worsening environment. There are two issues, whether it is possible for it to happen and, if possible, is it what did happen. Basically it is plausible that life can start from molecular pseudo-life randomly colonizing lipid bi-layers and develop into living cells with more and more complicated cell membrane management. I accept that the scenario is (highly) speculative, and even if it could have happened that way I´d need evidence to show it did happen that way - I´m trying to show that none of these behaviours are of necessity automatically ¨programmed in from the start¨.
07 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI'll go over your post, but at first glance it seems you are doing what
I´m not sure I agree with the statement ¨it all has to be programmed in at the start¨ as representing what I said in the post I made replying to yours (rather than the one replying to Andrew Hamilton´s post). To be clear are you talking about the computer model, or the real thing?
If the former then it depends on implementation details of the model t ...[text shortened]... how that none of these behaviours are of necessity automatically ¨programmed in from the start¨.
is commoningly done by those that promote evolution, you start
in the middle of something established and say a little tweak here
could do it.
Kelly
08 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJaySo evolution won't be valid in your eyes till we solve the riddle of how life could have started, and maybe generating actual life from non-life? Would that then satisfy you that evolution is correct?
I'll go over your post, but at first glance it seems you are doing what
is commoningly done by those that promote evolution, you start
in the middle of something established and say a little tweak here
could do it.
Kelly