There is a pretty major flaw in your reasoning in that evolution works on a needs be basis responding to "pressure". Comparing the two is not as simple to do as you have done. A bad analogy, but the best I can think of on the fly, would be comparing a stream of water to an automobile. Water responds to gravity and pressure while a car has an engine.
So to illustrate the example further you could say "If in my car I were to race a puddle of water from point A to point B why does the car get there so much faster, and the puddle of water may never get there at all?"



Richard Dawkins makes a very nice counter to the sheer cliff argument against evolution. The problem with making an argument such as "How did such and such complex organism come into being? How can evolution explain this!?" is just flat out wrong.
The counter goes something like this:



Saying that some complex thing came to be from evolution suddenly is unexplainable such as jumping up a sheer cliff thousands of feet tall is the wrong way to look at it. What you need to do is go around to the backside of the mountain where there is a slowly raising incline that over the course of a long time will eventually lead you to the top of the cliff.




It is also important to understand how exactly evolution works, which I hope you will take with the utmost respect, my friend, you seem to not understand. Understanding how the wings on a bird could happen through an natural path is a good place to start in understanding a complex structure from simple means.




Also, it was proven that Chimpanzees, our closest cousins, are self-aware in a very interesting experiment. They would put the chimpanzee to sleep and draw a dot on its forehead. When it would wake up it would be in front of a mirror and when it would see the chimp in the mirror with a dot on its head it would touch its own forehead, not the "replica chimp" in the mirror. This is in comparison to maybe you have seen a dog or cat get in a fight with its own mirror reflection. The cat/dog is incapable of comprehending that the creature it sees in the mirror is actually itself.




On the subject of DNA, I have never heard the 3% good versus 97% junk thing before.
Have any references I can read up more on?
 

Hey Todd, thanks for replying, its nice to get some intellectual stimulation going so that I feel challenged. Without challenge or inspiration, I usually don’t feel too motivated to research anything so this is good. Although, I’m still in the philosophical questioning and pondering stage of things that doesn't mean that I dont want to read and research more to give the logical side of my brain some juice because that’s definitely important. Also, what I wrote on my blog was more of a "what if" kind of scenario and a "wow isn't that amazing" kind of run on imaginative thinking type exercise.




With that said, I guess I’m kind of confused with some of the things you typed.




“There is a pretty major flaw in your reasoning in that evolution works on a needs be basis responding to “pressure””



Are you saying that my reasoning WAS based on a needs be basis and pressure or that my reasoning WASN’T based on it? If not, what exactly did I say that was or wasn't based on it?



Also, when you said



“Comparing the two is not as simple to do as you have done”



Which two? I just want to clarify.




Also, your analogy was pretty awesome for being off the top of your head but you mention a stream of water and a puddle.
Which did you mean to use? A stream or a puddle? Or both?



Also, I want to make something clear, I never said that evolution couldn’t explain how such and such complex organism can come into being. What I was trying to say is that I think that there’s more to the subtle mechanisms that facilitate or lead up to evolution than we currently understand. I can go into more detail about why I think that if you want but I'll just leave it at that for now.




I definitely want to read Richard Dawkins book/books.




What part of my blog entry had to do with what you called the sheer cliff argument against evolution? Do mean to say that a sheer cliff represents jumps in evolution? Or are you saying that the sheer cliff without the awareness of the gradual slope behind it represents the mentality of a person who doesn't understand evolution? Either way, there's still a sheer cliff and sheer cliffs are caused by many different things not just because there's a gradual incline behind it. I'm sure you can direct me to such and such article but what I'm looking for is what you think based on your knowledge. Also, what exactly did I mention in my blog that made you think that I don't understand evolution? I'm not saying that I do understand it, I'm just curious what you're referring to.




Do you have a good article or book that I can read or a documentary that I can watch in regards to the natural process of how a wing on a bird developed?



I didn't know about the chimp and the dot on its forehead and how it showed self awareness. That's pretty freakin awesome.
Where did you read this, see this or hear about this?



Have you seen the things done with the bonobo chimps? There was a video from TED (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8nDJaH-fVE) that I watched that showed some pretty cool stuff. One of the chimps helped break and gather sticks for a fire, and got a lighter out of a womans pocket to start the fire and put it out with water. They also show that the bonobo recognizes itself in the mirror and makes drawings that the people say are a form of letters or language. The bonobos also created sharp flakes of stone to cut through animal hide. Supposedly none of it was taught to the bonobo but its clear that we definitely influenced the bonobo. So I dont know how much of those kinds of things could be developed out in the wild without outside influence and if they were learned out in the wild originally, what exactly facilitated it? Environmental change? Accidents? The need for survival? Maybe all the above? I've got lots and lots of questions.




Here's a pretty good article regarding the 3% good 97% junk DNA

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-junk-dna-and-what

That's not where I first heard about it but it was the first article I found on Google. I dont remember where I first read or heard about it.




At this point in time, I would say that I definitely have more questions regarding evolution than answers. It seems like you're saying that you have more knowledge of evolution than I do? I can ask you some of my questions if you're feeling up to it? Its easier for me to learn from a teacher than seeking out information on my own I'm sure you've read lots about evolution but I would rather hear a summary from your knowledge rather than you giving me a bread crumb and saying "here rat!! find the rest of the bread loaf in this gigantic building!" and then kick dirt in my face and walk off rather than nurturing me. I dont really have any kind of passionate interest in retaining all the factual knowledge and history right now, maybe later but right now I'm more interested in an intellectual discussion with you where I feel inspired or challenged. The inspiration and the challenge will give me the fuel to go and do some reading and research.

 

What I meant in that your reasoning was flawed is that you cannot compare the speed of evolution and technological progress. When you said humans have been roughly the same for 100,000 years compared to 200 years of progress in the enlightened age is an unfair comparison to make because evolution works and ONLY works on a needs be basis. Sharks are a good example of a species that has become so dominate it has required no need to evolve in quite some time. I understand your point was to illustrate how fast things have been moving, but it is not the best comparison to make.




The analogy I made was poor because if followed too closely then I would be saying the human brain is an engine. An engine being a thing designed by an intelligent being with an implicit purpose. What I was really after is that an engine is driven by a resource of fuel which can be stored and used more and less efficiently. The switch between a puddle and a stream was somewhat laziness and somewhat on purpose. I didn't want the race part of my example to be a car against a stream because under certain conditions water can outrun a car, and I wanted to demonstrate that water, like evolution, can come to a balance.




"Its funny that we regard human beings as the only

ones possessing consciousness or highly evolved intelligence but how do

you describe highly specialized behaviors such as the cordyceps fungus,

or the camouflage of an octopus, or the colors of skin which originate

in areas with higher or lower levels of sun exposure or even the very

structure of DNA itself by using the tired old description of an

accident or a successful mutation? I don't buy that.
"



Perhaps I misunderstood but this seems to suggest that you do not buy natural selection as a capable explanation. Which is why I posted the bit about Dawkins. When people look at something complex in nature they seem to not be able to comprehend how natural selection could be responsible. This is mostly due to not understanding how evolution works rather than any brilliant new observation they have made. The sheer cliff argument comes when people observe something in nature and say "AHA! This is so complex there is no possible way it could have come from a process of natural selection. It MUST have been designed. It MUST have been made with a purpose." Which is false. There has not been a single challenge such as this that has been shown too complex to be explained, and there are people searching furiously to find them as a type of smoking gun.




I unfortunately do not have any references online specifically on how a bird's wing can develop naturally, all my resources are good old fashioned paper books, of those Dawkins would be a great start. The God Delusion, or The Selfish Gene being most up the alley of what you are looking for. One anti-evolution argument that is given that might help ground you a bit on how the process of natural selection works is as such. "If you believe in evolution then you believe that a tornado could blow through a junkyard and a fully assembled airplane will be the result." Which is hilarious! Unbelievably hilarious. Like...amazing that people think this way, it really blows me away. The counter to this being that the whole argument is silly because it is working on such a high level that it is ridiculous. Natural selection works on the micro not macro scale where extremely small, extremely subtle changes are made based on various 'pressure'. A better example would be to imagine a combination safe, the type you twist a number dial and after twisting in the right sequence of numbers the lock opens. The chances of randomly guessing the combination are crazy huge, and depending on the number of digits in the code gets to the point that it isn't even worth calculating.




Now imagine that the safe is not a very good safe like a hot/cold sort of system. The further you get from the numbers you get 'feedback' of cold and the closer you get the warmer you get. With this sort of system finding the right combinations to surviving and developing complex structures is much easier than random chance. This hot/cold system is a drastic simplification of the system we live in, but demonstrates the point. When an organism gets complex enough that gravity starts to become a factor then organisms with traits that help them survive a fall, for example, will stick around compared to organisms who cannot survive falls. Overtime these traits will become strong as the organisms that cannot survive the fall will dwindle in numbers and those that can take on this new force: GRAVITY! will prosper. But, as I said, we live in a complex system where many forces are going on. If you have reached the complexity where gravity becomes important then something like wind will likely be important too. So perhaps rather than surviving falls you are better at surviving and using wind. Plants being the obvious direction I am going towards.




You can read more about the mirror test here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test



It is really amazing when you read about the animals that have passed it, and almost jarring some of the behaviours they will do. The elephant checking out inside of its mouth and looking behind the mirror are two things that still make me chuckle a bit thinking about.




I'll have to watch the TED video, they usually have really good content. As far as development of tools and weapons it all comes down to survival and competition. I am no biologist and I am not a sociologist so I won't try to pretend to explain these things at any length. By this point in the development of a species things are so complex just in the brain alone that sometimes there is just not a simple explanation and I have no cute anecdotes to explain away. A huge part of what has catapulted humans so far is our complex social and communication traits. Think of how difficult it would be to accomplish the things we have if a 100-200 word vocabulary were the limitations we had. Think about how much something as simple as farming has done for us as a species and once we figured out that...Hey! We don't have to hunt and gather our food for 16 hours each day, now we can spend time doing other stuff like making up gods and playing games and hating each other because of skin color and other trivialities.

 

Argh! So much to write about. I could probably write more but I dont want to over stuff this thing. Anyways, good stuff man. I still really need to do more solid factual research but thanks for clarifying some of that. It makes more sense now.




You mentioned that evolution only happens on a needs be basis and due to pressure. I definitely don’t disagree with you on that and I think that the idea I was trying to express in my blog still upholds the pressure and needs be explanation for evolution.




When I compared the evolution of technology with human evolution what I was exploring and trying to get at was the idea that maybe technology is becoming the next highest evolved organism. This is a very difficult thing to fathom because we regard technology as something that we made, separate from us and separate from nature, therefore how could it have intelligence without us creating it first? My answer is that technology is us and we are technology. Just as at one time we as humans were the symptom or part of Neanderthals with pressures and needs, technology could be a symptom or part of us. (only I’m sure, just like us, neanderthals had no damn clue what was coming down the tube or what they were causing to come into existence as a result of their survival needs.
) And who is to say what a new species would be like, look like, act like or come from?

The only difference between primitive human needs and present day human needs is that our needs and pressures are based on a higher evolved mentality like two successively played notes on the same guitar string, the notes sound separate but are just artifacts of the same string. Just look at all the things that we create. The things we create are all linked in with resolving our pressures and needs. Cars carry us so we don’t have to walk , microwaves cook food so we don’t have to wait, airplanes carry us so we don’t have to go across treacherous mountains and over oceans, bulldozers and jack hammers relieve tremendous amounts of manual labor and in a fraction of the time that it would take our human bodies to do the same. Computers allow us to calculate complicated formulas and equations, phones allow us to talk with someone instead of sending a telegram or walking for days to deliver a message etc. etc. etc. Nearly every technological creation that we create, builds on the last and is increasingly more complicated and more elaborate than the last. So why is it that we create these machines? Because we as humans have pressures and needs. A few of them are, war, disease, hunger, famine, environmental catastrophe, political and social upheaval, scarcity etc. etc. etc. And with the relieved pressure of our creations, the need for biological evolution that is based on needs and pressures is possibly non existent. Our technology is also an extension of our fear of physical inadequacy to keep ahead of nature and the more nasty predators such as sharks and bears. The more and more we develop and evolve our inventions and technology, the closer we get to being integrated completely into those systems which we create….I think eventually it will be very difficult to see the two as separate things and the reality will become obvious, that we are technology and technology is us.




One of the other ideas I was trying to express was that I cant really relate with the idea that energy is blind and that things in existence such as highly complex systems and intelligent organisms are simply the result of chemical reactions and pure coincidence. There seems to be something a bit deeper and fundamental than we currently understand. I say this because of the way things relate with each other in the environment. For example, you used the analogy of a combination lock and the closer or further you get it from the correct combination, you get hot or cold feed back. I’m guessing that the cold feedback would be things like, increase in mortality rate of a species, less copulation, lower birth rates, food scarcity etc.. While warm feedback would be higher success rate in finding food, efficiency in digesting certain foods which are plentiful, sufficient defense against predators, etc.
But my idea is more along the lines of asking the question of what is the force or biological mechanism that turns the lock in the first place and how does it know that its hot or cold if its blind energy that is doing the turning? Also, how does it know that hot is good and that cold is bad or that survival is what its supposed to be doing? And when and where does this knowing come into existence?

What I was trying to say in my blog was that consciousness or awareness might be the cause or force of the turning and that this awareness might be in every cell or infused into DNA or even in molecules or atoms or electrons themselves? When I say consciousness, I mean an awareness. Either self awareness or awareness of the environment itself.


I don’t think that in order for something to have consciousness or awareness, that it requires a god or supreme being in order for that thing to have the “gift” of consciousness. I don’t think it was ever there to be given, because it was always there. I say that it was always there because we and everything we see according to science, is not a result of the big bang, we are the big bang. Everytihng originated and is connected with the big bang and so our relationships with one another are intimately related. Ground to feet, lungs to air, trees to soil, bees to flowers, ocean to weather patterns, planets to suns, solar systems to galaxies, galaxies to…..whatever. All of which without the other wouldn’t exist or at least there wouldn’t be a sensing organism or relationship of forces to know that it existed, therefore in our definition of existing, it wouldn’t.


If awareness or consciousness is based on advanced thinking ability, where does that begin and end? What I mean is, if awareness is dependent upon whether or not an organism has a highly developed brain and so its able to make complex decisions for survival purposes, what amount of brain cells is required for this to happen and if you add one or take one away would this all of the sudden take away or induce awareness or consciousness? It just makes more sense to me that awareness is a very subtle thing and that we impose our own definition on things therefore, it exists to us in that way until we find a better or more defined explanation.


A brain is just a mush of cells without the whole body and the body is nothing but a mass of cells and tissue without the brain and an environment is needed for a body to know that it is there. So there seems to be an intimate relationship at a very subtle level of everything.


For example, if a seed from a tree takes advantage of the wind and its form is that of a helicopter blade which twirls in circles, down to the ground riding the winds current to carry itself further there’s obviously a connection between the plant and the wind, or at the very least, its environment. Just like sharp fangs are good for tearing at meat or bristly wale teeth are good for straining out plankton from ocean water.


I mean are there traits in species that have been found that aren’t a blatantly obvious mutation, that don’t serve a purpose or do not serve a function? I don’t mean things like, why do we have a tailbone if it doesn’t serve a purpose, I mean are there any traits which aren’t directly connected with the environment?

I mean what traits are there that do not serve a function? Each trait that I can see that isn’t a blatantly obvious mutation, serves a purpose that is directly connected with the environment and the organisms residing in it. And if you want to get really technical, an organisms mutations are also connected with the environment and the decisions that the organism makes.




I guess what I see as being the implications of awareness in the tiniest of things such as electrons responding to observance, is that we must have some connection between our thoughts, our cells and our DNA. Also, if there is a deeper consciousness or even just cells operating under the drive for survival, these cells are essentially functioning at the molecular level, wouldn’t it make sense that they can also manipulate DNA for the survival of the species? They manipulate all kinds of other simple molecules such as proteins and sugars all the time in order to help perpetuate the ongoing existence of the organism, I mean how far off would it be to manipulate genes in order to help the continuation of the species? I guess you could say that cells don’t have the brains and reasoning of a highly developed brain, so they wouldn’t be able to make highly developed decisions like picking and choosing what gene sequences can help continue the species. But what I'm saying is maybe there is a connection between your experiences, your highly developed brain and its relationship with all the cells in your body.
And which is really in control? Cells or our awareness? Or is it just one in the same function?


 

The problem with discussions such as these is it is very difficult to keep them eloquent as we have brilliantly demonstrated so I am going to attempt to keep this as focused as possible so forgive me if I only address key things.


I think interesting conversation can be had about evolution by extension, which is what your idea of technology is. I am also pretty sure you understand this is not a new concept. But there is a very important distinction to be made between natural selection, and the things that are a result of what comes from natural selection. Saying that technology is the next highest form of evolution is not looking at things clearly.


Will we reach a point where these things blur so much that it is impossible to tell where homo sapien ends and where technology begins? That is a different discussion, but again an interesting one. What I really hope you get out of this conversation is that you should really take the time and really invest in understanding exactly how natural selection works. It is one of the most important concepts to have a very solid understanding of yet so few people really do.


You really like that word mutation, hehe. It seems to be what you are using because you do not want to say random. You are all over the place on time and scale and this is an extremely important thing not to do. You can't go from brain to cell to DNA to electron and expect them to all be subject to the same rules. Just as a simple example friction is very important at the organ scale, but is non-existent at the atomic scale.


The relationships you see in nature are a result of time. A whole hell of a lot of time. The reason why everything works so snugly is the result of a long, long, long time of all the various forms of pressure and different ways energy is distributed competing to reach a somewhat stable harmony. If you went back 75 million years ago your not going to find an animal with 700 penises. You won't even find one with 70 penises because this is not how natural selection works. Natural selection is not some random mutation that it just tries for the hell of it and if it works it sticks and if it doesn't it falls off.


Asking what traits are there that do not serve a function is a silly question. Everything that makes up our body is there because it serves a damn good reason for being there. It is pretty rare that something suddenly becomes useless. What is most likely to happen is that something will slowly become less important and as a result will start to change based on all the pressures being applied to it. The tail being a good example but if you want a better example try this out.


If suddenly all light were to cease. We still get our energy somehow, but that is not important. What is important is what good are our eyes? They become pointless. After a few months our eyes will still be there and might still work if the lights were flipped back on, but there may be some damage to them. Our children will start to develop eyes exactly like we did except there is no light! This will greatly effect their development as they go from babies to children to adults. If you were to suddenly turn the lights on then the chances are pretty slim their eyes developed correctly. Now lets introduce time into this. Let's go 5,000 generations in the future under these new dark conditions.


First of all, we probably would not have survived, but entertain the idea! Say somehow we did. The eyes of humans 5,000 generations from now are going to be very different from what they are now, and if you were to turn the light on then the chance that they will work even the slightest bit are pretty slim.


Go 100,000 generations in the future. Will we even have eyes anymore? How will our ears have adapted to this. Since we don't have light, sound is going to become absolutely vital and sonar will be very common traits in all animals that survive. People who can't hear that well will not survive as easily and better hearing will become a stronger trait.


This type of event is more likely to cause a mass extinction, such as with the dinosaurs, so this example is only for fun. Our eyes did not develop out of pointlessness they developed for a very good reason. A change in the environment made them obsolete and as a result they will start to wither and either adapt or become less and less important to where they disappear completely if enough time is given.


This is on a much larger scale than cells or DNA, and as such not all the exact same rules apply. A lot of our cells are more dependent on nutrients from food we eat. That food will no longer grow which has a pretty obvious impact on our cells but this is indirect. Much of our body could survive without the sun directly, but indirectly we need it. Our cells would not be able to develop to other forms of energy consumption and we would die. But say light slowly started to go away instead of suddenly. Just a tiny bit with each generation. Would our food sources adapt to it and in turn would our cells adapt to the food source? If yes, we survive, if not...we become part of the fossil record.


The universe is a cruel bitch, but it is all we have.

 

Sorry it took me a bit to respond, been a busy little monkey trying to get on top of my final assignment at Animation Mentor......Then again, maybe you weren't expecting a response, maybe you were thinking "hell yeah, that last post I made is gonna shut that mofo up!"....THINK AGAIN! I'm back ah ha ha ha!! With more questions and challenges Ah ha ha ha!! MUTATION, MUTATION, MUTATION, MUTATION....yes, I do love that word.....ummm..lets see, Where to begin. I think I'll try my best to keep it simple this time.

I still haven't done very much real reading or research, so I feel like a disrespectful bastard but just know that eventually when I have more motivation and time, that I definitely will, but I'm really enjoying this discussion with you.

Ok, now for some questions.


1. Do you know if the possibility for wings and scales etc.
is present in every organism? For example, if enough pressure and needs were put onto say a mammal, would it be able to grow wings or gills due to having recessed genes? Or are certain genes only found on a kingdom type basis where the branches went away from eachother at some point? For example, are genes for growing scales only found in reptiles? Or are they also found in mammals and birds since we descended from reptiles?

2.
If we have the potential to grow scales or become cold blooded like reptiles, what is it exactly that fascilitates this change? You can say pressure and needs be basis, but what inside the cells and or organism creates this shifting around of genes? And system is it exactly that is keeping track of whether or not to make those changes? is the correct term to use to describe this, Epigenesis or Adaptation?

3. Your example with losing eyes due to lack of sun made a lot of sense but I have a question.
At which point does damage done by the effects of having a lack of sun start to actually have an effect on a genetic level where it actually starts affecting our offspring? And is it only damage which causes this or is it also positive things like abundance of sun? How much experience is transferred to genes in a lifetime?

I probably left out a lot of stuff but I'll leave it at that yo!
 

You seem quick to forget that there are mammals with wings and gills. Bats and Dolphins are all that come to mind. There might be more, I cannot recall. The possibility to develop these things is "present" in any creature. Are we more likely to develop them because they are in our genetic history? I would take a guess and say yes, I mean it makes sense, but I honestly do not know if we have any more of an advantage over some creature that never had wings in its genetic history.


What you really need to understand is that these very high level changes you are tossing around must be broken down to understand how such an immense change could take place. This is not something I am capable of doing with only an enthusiast understanding of Biology. To give a basic explanation, as I understand it, is that the main source of genetic change is chemical (and also mutation I KNOW I KNOW).


Mutation happens when cell division takes place and the genetic material is not accurately copied. Many other things can cause mutations such as radiation, and is why cancer can, if you are exposed long enough, develop. Mutation is no more random than physics but there are so many things going on predicting what is going to happen is extremely difficult. Think of it like trying to pinpoint exactly where the rear view mirror is going to land in a car crash...before it happens. Mutations are important because they do cause changes, but they are not the main source of changes and more often cause problems. I just wanted to nail mutation in your brain as this is not the route you want to be going if you want to understand why if the weather changes for an extremely long period of time how DNA will respond.


The main source of changes are chemical influences. What controls these influences is...a very good question. This is where my knowledge on the subject runs out and where I will have to continue researching. The only reason why I know so much more about mutations is my reading up on cancer.


However, there isn't really a need to get into this level of detail unless you really want to satisfy some need to know exactly how it works. I am happy with a high level understanding of how they work with the piece of mind that if I need to dig in and read all the details it is out there.


Finally, as far as how long would it take to affect our genes of not having the sun would be extremely quick, but not in the way you are thinking. As I pointed out without the sun our main sources of food would rapidly shift and our diet is a big part of how everything in our body works. If we somehow were able to survive the change in our diet would have the largest and most immediate impact on...everything. This huge impact on us would have a huge impact in the way the embryo will develop since the woman's diet is so important. And so on into each generation. This is only 1 form of 'pressure' that would come into play and cause changes. You can't forget a sudden lack of warmth will cause problems and many other things would happen if there was no sunlight.


How these changes translate into the chemical changes in our DNA I am not completely clear on, but if you want to dig into that detail and explain it to me I would be happy to listen!
 
 

LOL....ummm....Todd....I hope you weren't trying to say that dolphins have gills. Maybe you were just trying to say that they swim in the water similar to fish but unlike other mammals? As far as the bat, I guess what I should have said was feathers, not wings. But yeah, its pretty amazing that the signs of evolution and ancestry are found and can easily be perceived on so many levels without even having to go in with the microscope. Explaining, proving and describing the why and how on a deeper more subtle level though, definitely requires observation on lots of levels with lots of instruments it seems.


A question I have about the transference/duplication of DNA into new cells is what proof is there that mutations and changes occurring during cell division are caused by "mistakes"? I would like to read more on what the proof is that indicates that these chemical changes are mistakes and not intentional. I'm not talking about the obvious damage and changes caused by things like radiation. I'm talking about the changes and supposed damage that occurs naturally as cells divide which you said happens because the genetic material is not copied accurately. What I'm saying is that it might just be a matter of initial perception or expectation on our part that causes us to believe that these changes are accidental and not intentional. Like a matter of personal belief that one thing is better or worse than another, or the idea that material is basically stupid and blind. For example if you see on a small level that a certain part of the DNA is'nt copied or that a part is changed, if its an exception to the norm, the immediate reaction would probably be that it's a mistake because your idea of the way that things things are supposed to work has already precluded any other explanation.


I mean, if there were to be any kind direct influence in DNA due to experience, behavior or environment, cell duplication would be the place where it would be occurring or transferred dont you think? This is probably a bad analogy because it compares nature to human made machinery but say that DNA is kind of like a companies computer database that needs to be backed up every single night and then fed back into the server every morning. The advantage of backing it up every day is not just to back up the information that has always been there, its to preserve the work that was done during the day in addition to all the work that has been done in the past. It seems really silly to me to think that DNA duplication wouldn't follow this same example because of the advantages to survival that it presents. This might seem really silly to you because I'm comparing human made technology to nature but the more I look at things and the more I learn, the more it seems that everything in life is a fractal or a division, or muliplication or a factor of itself. Kind of like those mandlebrot sets where no matter how far or how close you zoom, its the same thing going on. I'm not saying its exactly the same thing but I'm saying that things seem to follow a similar structure.


For example, I went to this lecture held by this mycological society that I joined here in Seattle and the speaker was a mycologist by the name of Paul Stamets. His lecture was fascinating. He was also one of the speakers at TED.

One of the ideas that Paul presented during his lecture, was that he thinks that mycelium (which is the thin membrane of fibers and branches which fruits mushrooms) is earths natural internet. People have given him a lot flack for this idea but it makes a lot of sense to me. Especially when you compare the opte project to how the mycelium looks and works. He believes that the internet shares the same archetype as the mycelium and that the creation of the internet was an inevitable consequence of a previously proven evolutionary successful model describing the way mycelium essentially shares information and adapts and has survived and flourished since the earliest periods of life on earth. He says that at the time we needed to share information and resources, the computer internet was being born at the time of the beginning of the so called ecological collapse. He showed us this microscopic video of the mycelium branches which revealed comet nuclei, which are bundles of genetic material, that were steaming all over the mycelium all the way to the tips. Enabling information and adaptation to take place on an extremely efficient level. During the lecture, Paul Stamets also presented an image of a representation of dark matter in the universe and it also shared the same visual structure as mycelium, the same goes with networks of neurons. Also, along the lines of things being a sort of fractal of one another, if you look at say, Phoenix or any other large city, from a few miles up, it looks a lot like a fungus or a mold growing on the planet. Whether or not we as humans are just inspired by nature and so we unconsciously or consciously build upon natural systems we observer or the fact that we are affected by the same forces that all matter is subject to so we act, react and create in a similar fashion....I dont know.






 
 

Hah! I must have been pretty tired. I Didn't really think the dolphin example through, but my main point being that mammals are a diverse group.

That is a solid question you ask about mistakes. Not all mutations are bad, and sorry if I came across that way. The harmful mutations outweigh the beneficial ones quite a bit. Our stance on what judges if it is harmful or beneficial is if it benefits or hampers the survival of the organism. This is very much debatable but there are some pretty clear cut cases.

For example, cancer is a genetic mutation in which radiation, or other sources, mutates a cell in that when it multiplies it no longer is useful for your kidneys or brain or whatever the original purpose was and instead is this kind of putrid mass taking over. This is why you can get bone, liver, brain, lung, etc.. cancer because everything in susceptible. It is pretty clear that cancer does not benefit us in anyway since it kills the host. This is also why cancer is such a difficult thing to cure.

I saw Paul's TED video a couple weeks back! Extremely fascinating stuff, and that is really cool you got to see him speak. I had no idea that fungi preceded plants on land, but it makes a lot of sense, and his theories on them being the gateway to sustainable life on land are very interesting.
 
 

Ha ha, That's what I thought, Todd you typing speed demon!!

Yeah, cancer is a real bitch. I cant believe how many people it affects. I would like to learn more about that bastard. Have you heard any interesting theories or evidence explaining why its becoming more and more common nowadays? I've heard, seen and read a few things but I'm interested in what you know. It would be interesting to see the comparison between cancer cases from the beginning of history and cancer cases recorded present day. It would be interesting to see how much it has or hasn't increased and then compare that to how much chemicals and artificial products or GMO products we're exposed to and see if there really is a connection there. I think you and I had a discussion one time about how certain plants have carcinogens in them naturally. I also learned that from a mycologist recently who showed some of us mushroom hunters that certain plants in the forest have carcinogens in them. I even tasted one! But I didn't swallow it. It was this fern that grows on moss that grows on trees. The root tastes like 10 times sweeter than sugar! It was crazy. I couldn't get the sweetness taste off of my tongue for quite awhile ha ha! Anyways, I wonder how many plants have carcinogens in them naturally and maybe its never been tested or maybe its never been detected? Who knows. Makes me think how far back cancer has been recorded or found. In fossils? Maybe that's what killed off the dinosaurs ha ha! Maybe the sun enters into this stage of insane radiation for a few hundred years and then dies back down.....who knows. If that's the case, we're all screwed! Maybe that's what 2012 is all about! Ha ha! Everyone gets cancer!! But seriously, cancer blows goat nuts. I really hope we find some cure or real good preventative measure soon.
 

When I saw this it reminded me of the fungus and ant thing you were talking about

Body Invaders

 

That's pretty awesome dude. It reminded me of something that I HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommend to you. I mean it fucking blew my mind when I watched it and really made me re-analyze the way I thought about insects. Plus, the cinematography was amazing! Its called "Life In The Undergrowth". Rent it or buy it or download it or do whatever you can to watch it. It was amazing.
http://www.amazon.com/Life-Undergrowth-David-Attenborough/dp/B000EBD9W6