Image:
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
A billion and a half years ago, life on earth was staggeringly dull. The ocean, once a steaming primordial soup, had become a cold, thin, dreary broth of look-alike organisms. Eukaryotic cells with internal structures had appeared, but multicellular creatures were scarcely a blip in the census. Life lazed through those doldrums for a million millennia.
Then something happened: some unidentified combination of environmental circumstance and genetic novelty triggered crazy diversification in the variety and complexity of animal life over tens of millions of years, climaxing in the so-called Cambrian explosion. By 530 million years ago the seas held all the bizarre creatures fossilized in the Burgess Shale (and popularized two decades ago by Stephen Jay Gould in his book Wonderful Life). Many of those animals were evolutionary dead ends, but a few were the progenitors of every animal alive today.
When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, he touched off a Cambrian explosion in evolutionary thought. Naturalists had theorized about evolution for centuries before him, but their ideas were generally unfruitful, untestable or wrong. Darwin’s breakthrough insight was not that a simple mechanism—natural selection—made evolution possible. Rather it was that in organisms whose environment changed nonrandomly and whose reproductive success in that environment depended on inherited traits, evolution became inevitable.
In the decades that followed, Darwin’s ideas connected up with the nascent field of genetics and then, at an ever quickening pace, with molecular biology, ecology and embryology. The explanatory power of his concepts proved irresistible. Today, 200 years after his birth and 150 years after Origin of Species, Darwin’s legacy is a larger, richer, more diverse set of theories than he could have imagined.
Consider the notion of selection itself. What Darwin called natural selection was the competition for ecological resources often abbreviated as “survival of the fittest.” As H. Allen Orr describes, natural selection demonstrably drives much of evolution and speciation. Yet modern biologists have also elaborated greatly on Darwin’s ideas about sexual selection, in which members of a species compete for opportunities to breed. Kin selection and other forms of group selection are active areas of study, too, with theorists debating roles for selection at the level of single genes, individual organisms, whole species—or all of the above.
Meanwhile the sources of heritable variation go far beyond point mutations in genes, as David M. Kingsley explains. Such changes might facilitate the rapid evolution of complex traits.
Just as most of the weird Cambrian monsters eventually went extinct, many current hypotheses in evolution will also wither over time. Those that survive, however, will be inestimably powerful for explaining the natural world. We humans can also continue to use those ideas to make technologies more adaptable and robust. Why shouldn’t we learn from billions of years of nature’s experiments?
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Dynamic Darwinism".
This article was originally published with the title Dynamic Darwinism.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add Comment"Then something happened"! Why something happened? How come the Quantum?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen something happened"! Why something happened?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow come the Quantum?
/taffazull /
=====================..
Evolution, Physics, Probability & Consciousness.
======= =======.
Once upon a time, in the beginning, (20 billions of years ago)
all matter (all elementary particles and all quarks and their
girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks, all kinds of waves:
electromagnetic, gravitational, muons… gluons field ….. etc.)
– was assembled in a “single point” accidentally. (?)
Then it has accidentally blown up: Big Bang " has taken place.
It was the reason of accidental creation of some thousands
kinds of elementary particles and their girlfriends - antiparticles.
Then atom of hydrogen was formed accidentally. (?)
Then complex atom was formed accidentally. (?)
Then stars were formed accidentally. (?)
Then the Planet the Earth was formed accidentally. (?)
Then the fauna was formed accidentally. (?)
Then the animal kingdom was formed accidentally. (?)
Then the man was created accidentally. (?)
And this man can accidentally think logically. (?)
But of course, unfortunately, not always.
===========.
We know, there is no information transfer
without energy transfer. More correct : there is no quant
information transfer without quant energy transfer.
And the electron has the least electric charge.
It means it has some quant of the least information.
What can electron do with this information?
Let us look the Mendeleev / Moseley periodic table.
We can see at first, that electron does, it interacts with proton
and creates atom of hydrogen. This is simplest design,
which was created by electron.
And we can see how this information grows and reaches
high informational level. And the most complex design,
which was created by electron is the Man.
The Man is alive essence. Animals, birds, fish are alive essences.
And an atom? And atom is also alive design.
The free atom of hydrogen can live about 1000 seconds.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if
to give suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he would turn into Man.
========.
Maybe it is better not to search about "dark, virtual particles "
but to understand what the electron is,
because even now nobody knows what electron is.
The one, who creates a general picture of Life, must consider
development of evolution of Life from atom up to the Man.
==============.
How the God created our terrestrial world?
======== ========
The God is unknown materialistic thing.
No one knows what the external characteristics
of this God are, a God who made himself known
with the name " I am who I am ".
But in the Bible we can read that at first He took
a “clay” and made a figure of a man
and only after He gave him a “soul”.
How can we understand this scientific?
====== ========
1.
The “clay” is a proton.
2.
The “soul” is a quantum of light / electron.
3.
Interaction between proton and electron is created
simplest atom - atom of hydrogen.
4.
And atom is alive design.
The atom of hydrogen lives 12 minutes.
5.
After is created a complex atom.
6.
The evolution is continuing.
7.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if
to give suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he will turn into Man.
===========.
Evolution of consciousness.
It was a hot summer day.
In the zoo, near the cage of gorilla the gapers gathered.
They laughed and threw bits of fruits and bread into the cage.
And gorilla was twirling round in the narrow cage, not finding enough room for itself.
Our eyes met and I saw agonizing pain in the eyes of gorilla.
Its eyes were human ones.
I gazed at it in astonishment.
Then I transferred my glance on the people.
They laughed and their eyes were brutal, soulless.
Silently I observed this picture.
Ones, having learned to walk on two feet and speak using human voice,
preserved the ferocious hatred.
The others, in the skin of an animal, already possess the human origin.
Links of one chain, of one evolutional civilization.
======..=============
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/sadovnik.pdf
Amen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is simple to demonstrate a computer program that creates numerous and varied complex fractal patterns using chaotic, random bounds, and all within a couple of hours. To acheive the same output using thorough programming would take thousands of years. This is an example of why nature uses chaos to generate complex forms, some of which are then eliminated by selection. Chaos may not find the best solutions, but it does find viable solutions quickly. Therefore, there is no need of Intelligent Design to produce life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Then something happened." In the context of this article the author acknowledges an honest gap in our present understanding of the events which happened at that time. This allows for the possibility that one day we could well know what that 'something' is, just as we now know that thunder is not the threatening voice of an angry god. A lacuna in current human knowledge is not usefully plugged with quasi-religious Polyfilla.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI.
At Darwin 200
Darwin Extended Beyond His Own Horizon
Rethought Unified Field Theory And Evolution
A. SN Special : Darwin turns 200
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/39754/title/SN_Special__Darwin_turns_200
This special web edition of Science News includes expanded versions of articles from the magazine's print edition plus two additional features, all commemorating the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin.
B. 22nd Century Conception Of Unified Field Theory And Evolution
The following brief essays present the 22nd century comprehension of evolution. They preserve Darwin's name in reference to Life Evolution in respect and appreciation of Darwin's promotion of the concept of evolution in life.
Life's Manifest
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/112.page#578
Culture, A Ubiquitous Biological Entity
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/98.page
Life And Darwinian Evolution, 21st Century Comprehension
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/112.page
Rethink Unified Field Theory And Evolution
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/60/122.page#982
II.
Evolution beyond Darwin 200
Per "Design And Randomness In Cosmic And Life Evolution"
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1&p=404
Singularity and D-Infinity (max expansion, energy dilution) are the cosmic end states. Their in-between is a metastable state. This corresponds to commonsense observation: the denser the compacting goal of material the more energy is required, and vice versa the more thorough the disintegration of material the higher the amount of energy released. It seems that the cosmic universal process is E=Total[m(1+D)] , where D is the Distance from Big Bang point and the sum is of all spatial values of D from D=0 to D=selected value.
Presently the cosmos expands on the right side of the equation. However, within its accelerating overall energy dilution there are local phenomena of formation of temporarily constrained energy pockets that evolve backwords towards impansion. The two most obvious examples of such backword energy constraints are black holes and life, two distant relatives within a probably big family of various forms of cosmic 'backlash energy constraints'.
Suggesting,
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1
Darwin misunderstood. Michael Shermer laments the term "survival of the fittest" and the misinterpretation of Darwin that results from it. As he says the word "fittest" is generally taken to mean the strongest, biggest, fastest, etc., rather like the olyympic athlete who wins the race. But if you use the word "fittest" in the sense of the most apt, the most fitting, the individual who fits in best, then "survival of the fittest gets closer to what Darwin and Wallace meant. A winning olympian swimmer, for instance is certainly the fastest in the pool but not necessarily because he has trained harder or is more aggressive than his competitors but because he has, in addition, physical characteristics ( large hands and feet, maybe) which fit his purpose and give him the advantage. If you use this meaning of the word "fittest" then the term "survival of the fittest becomes, well, fitting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do evolutionists explain how living creatures can reproduce more than its genes dictate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery element of every living creature, flora and fauna, replicates because of its genes. A giraffe always reproduces long necks, a shark always reproduces sharks with all of the features of a shark, roses always produce roses and so on. They can do this because each has specific genes on their chromosomes. Therefore, they can never reproduce more of less than what their genes dictate. So, having established that scientific fact, going back to your first 1 celled organism(s) in your soup, when they reproduced, they couldnt have become any more than what their genetic makeup dictated. But if you believe a one celled organism could evolve into more, less or different than it is, then each one celled organism, way back when, would have possessed or contained all of the genes necessary to evolve into all other life forms on this planet, such as a giraffe, a shark, a human, a tree and so on. Without proof for this part of the theory of evolution, its impossible for anything to have evolved into any thing other than what its genes dictate.
Theres no evidence that genes develop into other genes. I understand they may mutate occasionally, but then youd have to believe a planet of well-balanced life is the product of genetic mutation; thats not scientific and ridiculous. If you reply, please dont try to convince me that the little single celled organism started developing a tail and fins, etc. as if it was something it desired. I heard that one in grammar school and its impossible for the little single celled organism to start growing properly positioned fins or a tail or whatever UNLESS THE GENES TO DO SO WERE ALREADY ON THE CHROMOSOMES.
In other words, unless this is answered scientifically with proof, the theory of evolution is dead; give it up.
How do evolutionists explain how living creatures can reproduce more than its genes dictate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery element of every living creature, flora and fauna, replicates because of its genes. A giraffe always reproduces long necks, a shark always reproduces sharks with all of the features of a shark, roses always produce roses and so on. They can do this because each has specific genes on their chromosomes. Therefore, they can never reproduce more of less than what their genes dictate. So, having established that scientific fact, going back to your first 1 celled organism(s) in your soup, when they reproduced, they couldnt have become any more than what their genetic makeup dictated. But if you believe a one celled organism could evolve into more, less or different than it is, then each one celled organism, way back when, would have possessed or contained all of the genes necessary to evolve into all other life forms on this planet, such as a giraffe, a shark, a human, a tree and so on. Without proof for this part of the theory of evolution, its impossible for anything to have evolved into any thing other than what its genes dictate.
Theres no evidence that genes develop into other genes. I understand they may mutate occasionally, but then youd have to believe a planet of well-balanced life is the product of genetic mutation; thats not scientific and ridiculous. If you reply, please dont try to convince me that the little single celled organism started developing a tail and fins, etc. as if it was something it desired. I heard that one in grammar school and its impossible for the little single celled organism to start growing properly positioned fins or a tail or whatever UNLESS THE GENES TO DO SO WERE ALREADY ON THE CHROMOSOMES.
In other words, unless this is answered scientifically with proof, the theory of evolution is dead; give it up.