Here's a thought.

Finally I figure out how to get my message from my computer word processer to the board without a link.

Will, a force of evolution?

I’ve heard theories about accidental genetic mutation as a possible cause of evolution. In a previous post I mentioned an idea I’ve entertained myself with about how memories or successful responses towards environmental stresses may be somehow recorded and have a chance of being passed down to offspring or the offspring of offspring as instincts and impulses that help in their survival and the survival of their species. Species which developed this unconscious genetic ability would definitely gain an advantage of survival over competing species without this genetic ability. Scientists who research DNA have no idea what most of the coded DNA they find represents, so they have nicknamed it junk DNA. Junk DNA doesn’t seem to be responsible for anything important, but what if some of it is encoded information and knowledge? Somehow I don’t feel it is expedient for a more advanced and successful species survival not to have some system in place to store and pass down clever new tricks of survival in a form other than learned and taught behavior. In animals we observe this ability as instinctual knowledge. In ourselves we see a sense of this in what we observe as traits inherited from an ancestor who died before he could teach his traits or charms, yet never-the-less they are miraculously observable to a differing degree in one or more of his offspring or offspring’s offspring.

I feel there are likely in-numerable causes for evolution. One exciting idea I thought about after watching a nature episode about the birds of paradise and how many unexplainable forms of beauty the starling has mutated into on these isolated islands containing no predators was the idea that conscious will may also play a role in evolution. The birds there rapidly mutated not out of necessity but seemingly to some sort of a divine plan and conscious pleasure of the spectacular and beauty. The beaks of birds are an example. Say a certain seed eater learns a taste for flower necter but is frustrated by the clumsiness of his bill at attaining it. He wishes his bill was a little longer and narrower to better obtain it. This will of a new form and possible dreaming of having this new form and being successful where as in the waking real world there was only failure, may trigger a genetic response to mutate more closely to this new and more successful dream form. Before this bird’s dreams of genetic alteration has time to occur because of the slowness of this process, the lack of steady conscious and unconscious effort towards the goal, and or the nature of the individual strength of will this particular bird possess say this bird dies of old age and to the naked eye there is little to no discernable physical change. Now say this bird passes down genetically not only its desire for the new source of food but likewise the need for a new kind of bill to harvest it better to one or more of its offspring. Say one of these offspring also inherits the dream memory of the parent bird where it has a longer beak and is therefore more successful and thus wills its beak to grow longer and more narrower as it developes from hatchling to adult and say it somewhat succeeds at this to a limited extent. Say a brother and sister from this hatching that inheritated all these same desires and dreams from their parent or parents find these more developed features on each other more appealing during mating season so they wind up mating with each other rather than with birds of their own species with less desireable and shorter beaks. Say their hatchlings inherite all these same desires and take them a little further. Eventually a new species of bird could evolve from the exercise of conscious will and conscious selection rather than natural selection of the survival of the fittest. We people I believe have this ability and are doing the same thing in this day and age to a limited and variously successful extent as our values about ourselves are influenced by media.

I don't mean to be a downer, but since this is definetely an area of intense interest to me, I feel the need to say something...hopefully I can say something useful without just being a naysayer...

 

>> In ourselves we see a sense of this in what we observe as traits inherited from an

>> ancestor who died before he could teach his traits or charms, yet never-the-less

>> they are miraculously observable to a differing degree in one or more of his

>> offspring or offspring’s offspring.

 

Again, I have to ask, who has seen this happen?  If it does happen, why isn't it documented?  I have never heard of evidence of someone's children acquiring traits that had been previously learned by its parents without first learning the trait themselves.

 

The Baldwin Effect can cause learned traits to become innate, but only if that learned trait is passed down long enough through cultural transmission.  If something unique is learned, but is not shared, there is no known mechanism (and none that I can imagine) for moving that knowledge into the genome.

 

>> One exciting idea I thought about after watching a nature episode about the birds

>> of paradise and how many unexplainable forms of beauty the starling has mutated

>> into on these isolated islands containing no predators was the idea that conscious

>> will may also play a role in evolution. The birds there rapidly mutated not out of

>> necessity but seemingly to some sort of a divine plan and conscious pleasure of

>> the spectacular and beauty.

 

Why must there be a "divine plan" at work here?  While not wanting to say that's impossible (of course, that would be silly), I do feel the need to point out that it is far from the most parsmonious explanation available.  Runaway sexual selection (two papers: a quite mathy one http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/9/5106, and a [possibly] more accessible one http://www.utm.edu/stafflinks/rirwin/391SexSel.htm) does create natural pressure for traits to evolove, and the mutations of these tropical birds that result in such a beautiful range of colours and patterns, as well as things like the giant peacock tail, are quite readily explained by it.

 

>> Say a certain seed eater learns a taste for flower necter but is frustrated by the

>> clumsiness of his bill at attaining it. He wishes his bill was a little longer and

>> narrower to better obtain it....

 

Again, I am very skeptical of any theory that claims that an individual's desire for something to happen somehow propagates back into the genome...while not wanting to say it's impossible, it postulates a very complicated system of transmission from neuronal state to DNA that just doesn't seem possible, given how the process of DNA translation from RNA to protein works.  There is definitely no direct "reverse translation" going on, and I very much doubt that anyone will ever find evidence of some kind of hormonal system that sends messages from brain to gamete and says "change this gene, we need a longer, narrower bill"...this is especially evident because there is no reason to believe that the phenotypes resulting from genetic encoding have any "knowledge", if you will, of how the genes code for them.  I'm afraid Occam's Razor slices that theory neatly into ribbons.

 

If, on the other hand, having a longer, slimmer bill bestows a fitness advantage on the bird...where birds with longer, slimmer bills are better able to survive and reproduce than others, then natural selection will drive the evolution of the species in such a way that they will, on average, have longer, slimmer bills.

 

I have no problem with the idea of Will, in the sense of god or our spritual being having a hand in evolution, but I must maintain that that force acts through the physical realities of this universe, and this theory doesn't seem to fit the physical facts.

 

-- sæskwač

Hi Sask,

 

I don't have a lot of time tonight to debate much, but I'll continue this thread when I can. I haven't read much about genetic gene theories in a while and have forgotten most of what I have as I do most subjects I loosely study so I can't argue much on academic points. I don't take to heart any academic studies or conclusions from their studies. Academic theories and findings give me ideas and sometimes influence my free thinking and determination of my own possible explanation for what things really are and what is really going on. But, everything is in constant motion and change, even scientific knowledge and understanding. I don't think we fully understand what all really takes place and is capable of taking place at the genetic and chemical level nor is this the complete picture. Just when we think we have it all figured out, someone who disagrees and is cleverer than those who wove their scientific and medical theory sorceries over our potentials and reality before will reveal to us that reality constantly changes. 

The fact that reality constantly changes (or is one thing eternally the same, depending on your point of view), doesn't mean that men cannot at least get an approximate grasp on how it changes...if you don't believe, though, that there is such a thing as objective reality, though, then, you are right in disregarding the work of scientists who have done their best to objectively explain how things work.  If that is the case, though, then there are all kinds of moral problems thrown up, especially with regards to how we interact with other people, and how our personal realities affect theirs, if at all.

 

It's true that science does not understand all of the inner mechanisms of things, but I do believe that they are coming, for the most parts, to better and better approximations of how things do work, and very often the gross approximations work well to predict, if not explain, what is going on in the universe.  Take the evolution of physics for an example...Isaac Newton worked out a model of physics that explains/predicts just about everything that goes on on our planet...it's true, you can predict how most things will behave by using the laws of Newtonian physics (which are, by the way, descriptive not proscriptive laws).  But along comes Einstein and shows us that Newton got it close, but not quite right, in the much larger scale (and the much smaller) Newtonian physics breaks down, also Newtonian physics took time as a constant and Einsterin showed that this is not necessarily the case...thus was born the Theory of Relativity...a closer approximation of how the universe works...in our everyday lives, the predictions of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics predict nearly the same things, and in many situations Newton's laws are more useful because their predictions are easier to calculate.  Of couse, nowadays it has been shown that even Einstein's physics isn't even the best approximation we can come up with, and one of the greatest minds of our time, Stephen Hawking, recently lost a bet about the workings of black holes because we are all the time getting to better and better approximations of the true workings of the universe.

 

Does this mean that reality changes, or does it just mean that our perception of it changes?  You may choose to define it either way, but claiming that someone is "weaving scientific sorceries over our realities" is just willfull ignorance, in my opinion.

 

 

Interesting discussion, with agreements on several points expressed by both of you so far. I agree that research to date shows fairly conclusively that evolution is based mostly on natural selection survival rates. The animal kingdom is not a clone factory. While bird and animal species may look the same to most humans, they are no more alike than humans. The differences may be minor, but there are differences. And if that bird that's born with a beak that allows more food to be aquired, and subsequently, a stronger bird, which mates more, then those traits will be passed on.

 

However, there in humans, there are many cases where traits are passed on to the children. And of course it's documented and so common place that to say you've never seen it is questionable. Musical talent, Artistic talents, physical traits, are all commonly passed on through generations. Even such wierd traits as the likelyhood of military service is usually something that can be traced back for generations. Could this be encoded in DNA? It's certainly probable. DNA is not just physical traits, that is just the area that is reasearched more and documented more. On the other hand, I have never seen Junk DNA refered to as something that is useless or as a unknown. In most cases, junk dna is improperly formed dna sequences that have been rejected and rewritten. There are components that are responsible for error checking sequences. Differences get through, but large sequences are rewritten in most cases. There are also dna sequences documenting evolutionary changes. All the history of a species is encoded in a dna strand. It may only be historical data now and no longer active but it's a known. this too falls into the junk classification. It's very important to understand that many words used in scientific research are not defined in the generic sense that the average person uses. Junk is one of these words.

 

I think it's important to understand that indeed, our reality is changing constantly. And today or tomorrow there will be more information discovered or realized in a great many areas. One should never take a hard stance and think that no more can be discovered about any subject. But even Occam's Razor has exceptions. Everything has exceptions. There is simply too much to be learned to ever think that we've got anything really figured out. That's not to say I agree with just giving it up as useless. Science builds on the discoveries that come before. No-one really starts at square 1. All research is valuable.

 

The key to this discussion though is Is Will a Force of Evolution. It certainly seems probable that as far back as the primordal soup, the will to live has been a key tenet of evolution. All things seem to evolve and not just physically. So why wouldn't it be at least a minimal probability that Will as a mental trait can evolve. Many mental traits have evolved. The trait described as Willpower has just as much a chance of evolving also. If so, it is unknown at this time how it could evolve, but the probability that it could evolve in such a way as to influence physical traits, or cause such trait to written to a DNA strand is still valid. And it has been shown before that by considering new ideas, new discoveries can be made. Is this not the basis for how we create our reality?

The fact that reality constantly changes (or is one thing eternally the same, depending on your point of view), doesn't mean that men cannot at least get an approximate grasp on how it changes...if you don't believe, though, that there is such a thing as objective reality, though, then, you are right in disregarding the work of scientists who have done their best to objectively explain how things work.  If that is the case, though, then there are all kinds of moral problems thrown up, especially with regards to how we interact with other people, and how our personal realities affect theirs, if at all.

 

I think reality is objective and subjective and much more alternate and infinite than anyone could ever dream. I've had a vision of physics that shows the connection of all things and how even the slightest exercises of will can directly influence and alter anything and everything if shaped and sent forward in a lucky or intelligent and knowledgable manner. The manifestation and transformation of all matter and the causes and effects of all manifestations and transformations that create all observable phenomenons is readily and easily available and predictable from a simple model I have devised explaining the beginnings and origin of creations. From the immortal observable beginnings of infinite creations things get a little more complex, but it is curious how the causes and effects of the more complicated dances and interactions of greater masses of finite particles of infinite potential return to the simple harmonies of their simpler and singular beginnings. Using this knowledge makes understanding the expansion of the Universe simple. Gravity is clearly revealed. Creation is revealed to be immortal and indestructable with no ends and no beginnings and with no bounds.     

 

 

 

Incidentally...

 

Here is a link to a great book dealing with the Major Transitions in the ways information is passed from generation to generation by evolution:

 

 

Cheers,

This discussion was interesting enough to bring me out of the Lurkers' Lounge. unfortunately I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet . I will re-read it later and see if I have anything intelligent to contribute. In the meantime may I just offer that, as a teacher of English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESL) and mother of two bilingual, bicultural children, and having spent almost my whole adult life in a "foreign" culture, I have come to believe that what many people accept as "natural" is in fact not **natural** but a part of their culture. It is very difficult if not impossible to analyze all the effects of our cultural upbringing, though spending time in another culture does help you to understand your own culture better.

Anyway, my point is that culturally-based beliefs and behaviors are so ingrained, so much a part of our subconscious, that we simply accept them as true, e.g. just "natural"...

 

OK. Time for more coffee. Hope that made sense.

 

Hikaru