Evolution: the Facts.

[Lowpro]

Yes, and surely it is of great interest how these instincts are stored?

Again I want to reemphasize that regardless of ID/non-ID the efforts to understand behavior have a few things to keep in mind:
I agree with everything you say about the brain/conventional computer comparison.

Well there's Alcock's text Animal Behavior which covers the gamut but genetics studies you'll mostly find with Drosophila

Honey bees are also studied to some extent due to their genetic qualities (parthenogenic qualities)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12536279

That's an example of the gene studies. For other animals it's more difficult to study but there's no major reason to suggest that genes influence their behavior especially instinctual behavior. The difficulty is that behavior is usually a mix of stimuli so it's not really linear call-and-response behavior. And it's also not always "logical" behavior. As mentioned some deer run away at any stimuli, others stare into your headlights.

My Freemon/Herron text mentions cross breeding studies to remove behaviors from Drosophila, specifically mating behavior but it doesn't mention genetic analysis. But if it's involving cross breeding then genetic component(s)* are the obvious offender.

*Note that components is a significant qualifier.

For the record I would LOVE for a time to come when computers are designed to commit to complex context associated "memory" rather than computing via training sets. And when that time comes I suggest we submit ourselves peacefully to our metal overlords.

 

[steenkh]

Thanks, Lowpro, that was illuminating. The Drosophila, and especially the Honey bee studies seem to say that instinctual behaviour can be found encoded in genes. That was surprising for me. But as you say, reality could be much more complicated.

 

[Akri]

The atheists are anti-ID and the theists are pro-ID.

It doesn't matter which side atheist or theists support, because it's a scientific question. If you're asking to view a debate between an atheist and a theist on a scientific issue then you're doing it wrong.

I think brains and computers have some attributes in common.

So do snails and forklifts.

 

[Lowpro]

Thanks, Lowpro, that was illuminating. The Drosophila, and especially the Honey bee studies seem to say that instinctual behaviour can be found encoded in genes. That was surprising for me. But as you say, reality could be much more complicated.

Well behavioral theory gets more complicated and becomes more difficult to have genetic studies meet behavioral studies. For instance regarding Freeman/Herron's text regarding sexual selection and the asymmetry of reproduction we'll mention the Stalk Eyed Fly (abbreviated SEF). A quick overview is that male stalk eye flies in the wild have exaggerated lengths of their eyes and as noted in the field it seemed to be a phenotypic selection due to females mating with them asymmetrically to short-eyed males. Now we can reasonably surmise that the QTL for the length of the male's eyes is selected for; the trait has a high fitness. The question is whether the females have a genetic preference versus a "learned" preference ie. are they disposed to the length of eye stalk or is there something about the eye stalk length that gets them all hot and bothered. It's a good question. especially considering that the trait in question isn't "all or nothing" long or short, but length varies.

Here's where it gets interesting. When a male SEF mates, the offspring are males and females which have the genes of the male with the longer eye stalks (due to selection) but in females the length of their own eye stalks should be irrelevant since males don't select for mating and the females do (another way to say it is that females discriminate but the males do not). BUT the females with the long-eye genes still prefer longer eyes and the shorter eye females prefer shorter stalked males. The preference seemed to exist dependent on the genes! The males with longer eyestalks actually evolved them as a secondary sex characteristic and a primary factor may be something else and the eyestalk length carried this asymmetrically. So without genetic or lab tests one may think that simple eyestalk length acts as a preference but deep down in the genes eyestalk length is actually concurrent with other selection traits.

I also need to mention that this isn't a silver-bullet analogy for all behaviors. Many behaviors lie within the genes but behaviors aren't 1:1 on genes and multiple genes influence elicit behaviors. It's extremely complex. This research paper actually debunked the previous theory of morphological preference in mating of stalk-eye flies but replaced it with a more complex one (part genetics of multiple loci, part behavior elicitation and all modeled within population genetics). It's probably going to be even more complex if this was performed in nature rather than in a lab where you can control for fitness characteristics such as extreme morphologies or behaviors. Again I shake my fists in frustration at nature...surrender your secrets to us dammit!!!

 

[steenkh]

What about species recognition? Has a link to genes been discovered here? I am thinking of how bumblebees try to mate with orchids, and this might be possible to work simulate in a lab.

 

[PartSkeptic]

No. The pro-ID are theists but 'the theists' are certainly not pro-ID.

You are quite right.

It doesn't matter which side atheist or theists support, because it's a scientific question. If you're asking to view a debate between an atheist and a theist on a scientific issue then you're doing it wrong.

My only reason for pro-ID vs anti-ID debate was a starting point. I was curious why this question has not been taken up by the pro-ID. You would think they would look for any unexplained phenomenon.

Having some attributes in common says little about how each one is getting there though. A bird and a bumblebee both fly but one uses aerodynamics and the other uses small-scale fluid dynamics, and you can't really extrapolate much about one from the other. Rather, you have to tackle the two systems separately as far as understanding how each one works to achieve flight.

So do snails and forklifts.

Flight involves air and it involves gravity. Cognition, whether brain or computer involves memory, logical processing, input and output.

Again I want to reemphasize that regardless of ID/non-ID the efforts to understand behavior have a few things to keep in mind: Behavior is emergent and nonlinear while brain computations are linear even if they're a training set. Brain neurons are not 1's and 0's and actually have effects BETWEEN 1's and 0's per neuron and between neurons. The capacity for the brain to computer FAR outstrips any computer and as such the comparison between then is at best used superficially. To actually investigate the brain as a computer seriously would be silly.

Another thing about the brain with regards to memory is that the brain and memory aren't actually stored discretely; it is not modular (and yes I am aware of the Broca areas but the intercommunication and neuronal plasticity make localization incomparable to computers). Memory uses context accessibility which means that a stimuli primes for other stimuli. This is the theory behind memory. That's probably why memories are specific-ish but lead to many cognitive outcomes rather than a linear path. That's another difference between the brain and computers.

I am aware that the brain is not a digital processor but a neural network. Nevertheless, the neurons must be pre-connected in a manner that mimics memory. That memory is must be assembled according to a "blue-print". I understand that quantum computers move away from digital states, but they too need to be arranged/programmed according to a set of instructions.

Information theory says that information in any form is quantifiable. Our alphabet can be represented by binary uni-code. Both require the same "quantity" of data.

I realise that this question involves multiple fields of study.

Yes, and surely it is of great interest how these instincts are stored?

Again I want to reemphasize that regardless of ID/non-ID the efforts to understand behavior have a few things to keep in mind:

I agree with everything you say about the brain/conventional computer comparison.

I have a dual belief system – theist and atheist. Mostly I am in theist mode for personal reasons, but can accept that there are reasons for each position. If I was asked to argue a non-theist position I could do so with conviction, with my theist beliefs squeaking in the corner of my mind. The converse is true, but without the logical inconsistencies of religious beliefs. That said we can stick to science.

I just happened to wonder if there are there things that science cannot explain that are contradictions or anomalies. If the growth of a living organism is indeed affected by a soul on a quantum level, then I doubt it will be provable. The closest we may ever get is to say we do not yet understand.

 

[Southwind17]

I just happened to wonder if there are there things that science cannot explain that are contradictions or anomalies. If the growth of a living organism is indeed affected by a soul on a quantum level, then I doubt it will be provable. The closest we may ever get is to say we do not yet understand.

If the closest we may ever get is to say that we do not yet understand why isn't that enough? That would be wholly consistent with a yet-to-be-determined scientific explanation. Why would we feel the need to ascribe 'a soul on a quantum level' as the reasoning, or something else wholly unscientific?!

 

[steenkh]

I just happened to wonder if there are there things that science cannot explain that are contradictions or anomalies. If the growth of a living organism is indeed affected by a soul on a quantum level, then I doubt it will be provable. The closest we may ever get is to say we do not yet understand.

Physics is constantly dealing with contradictions and anomalies, but that does not make them inexplicable. It is more often the case that we just do not know which hypothesis is the right one.

I doubt that there is much to be gained by thinking that souls work on the quantum level. In the absence of any evidence for souls at all, it is of course convenient to claim that souls reside in the quantum world, because it seems safely out of scrutiny (if you are familiar with the term 'God in the gaps', you will understand what I mean when I say this is an example of 'soul in the gaps'), but what we know of the quantum world does not seem very suitable for souls: Everything in quantum is governed by probabilities that are as random as can possibly be (there is as far as I know even a formal proof of this). Souls are not supposed to act randomly, so if they exist, they should be based on something else than the quantum world.

 

[Dancing David]

I am aware that the brain is not a digital processor but a neural network. Nevertheless, the neurons must be pre-connected in a manner that mimics memory. That memory is must be assembled according to a "blue-print". I understand that quantum computers move away from digital states, but they too need to be arranged/programmed according to a set of instructions.

Well not really, but some areas are of course still under investigation. So the brain develops, some structure on a large scale (like the hippocampus) are definitely coded for on a gross structural level, however the neural pathways that develop are only partly coded, they are coded by the enzyme gradients that occur in the developing tissues of infant and juveniles.

So when yo talk about dopamine pathways that go from the substantia nigra to the striatum it is a developed structure, only partly designed. the general growth of teh nerves from one area to another is following the enzyme gradients during growth and development. But think about a tree, it may generally grow in a certain direction, but not all trees of teh same species look the same. So while teh gross structure is caused by the enzyme gradient, the actual results are sort of chaotic in the fine structure.

So yes there is coding for the gross structural patterns and probably for some mid level structures as well, but not at the actual fine level of neurons and their axons and dendrites. With one notable exception, the verysmall area of teh retina caleld teh fovea, now which structures grow there is largely geneticly coded for, but probably has some associative programming as well.

Now if you have an average of 7,000 connections for a neuron with other neurons, it would be every hard to determine genetically how they respond to each other, first the growth and development at the level is not going to be genetically coded for directly, and the responses can't be coded for with one trillion individual neurons.

Now what can be coded for is the numbers and placement of receptors and production and release of neurotransmitter for the individual cells in an area, But the 'programming' is a 'soft and fuzzy' sort of thing, neurons that fire in sequence tend to potentiate to each other and cause each other to fire together. neurons that fire when the other neuron is not firing tend to attenuate and inhibit each other. And this is plastic between the neurons, so it is a sort of associative/conditioned programming.

Now which pathways have dominance and control is likely partly coded for, but also a function of the dispersion of receptors throughout the various networks and neurons. So certain mid brain areas involved in circadian rhythms and attention and arousal are likely to have some coding for their system control functions, but it will also be mediated by neurotransmitters and hormones that are along side the actual neural functions.

And then things are associated and conditioned during development and that seems to influence growth patterns as well on the axon and dendrite levels.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Physics is constantly dealing with contradictions and anomalies, but that does not make them inexplicable. It is more often the case that we just do not know which hypothesis is the right one.

I doubt that there is much to be gained by thinking that souls work on the quantum level. In the absence of any evidence for souls at all, it is of course convenient to claim that souls reside in the quantum world, because it seems safely out of scrutiny (if you are familiar with the term 'God in the gaps', you will understand what I mean when I say this is an example of 'soul in the gaps'), but what we know of the quantum world does not seem very suitable for souls: Everything in quantum is governed by probabilities that are as random as can possibly be (there is as far as I know even a formal proof of this). Souls are not supposed to act randomly, so if they exist, they should be based on something else than the quantum world.

I am familiar with God of the Gaps. No need to go there. I read an article somewhere that speculated that some genetic mutation might occur though quantum probability.

The quantum world is based on probability that is individually random but extremely predictable for the group. Radioactive decay follows is such a process. The formula is:

{A divided by 2 power (t/T)}
A = original amount
T = half-life constant
t = time.
For hydrogen-7 T= {23 divided by 10 power 24} seconds
For tellurium-128 it is {2.2 times 10 power 24} years​

If A is 1,000 and T is 100 years then after 100 years there will be half remaining (500) and after 200 years there will half of that (250) and so on.

My question is: What controls the group process? After one particle has decayed, what is making the others wait the very specific time for the next one to decay?

Does this not strike anyone as strange? We know the law, but we haven’t a clue why the law works? Sorry - a little off topic.

 

[steenkh]

My question is: What controls the group process? After one particle has decayed, what is making the others wait the very specific time for the next one to decay?

They do not. Each particle has the same probability of decaying all the time. The normal laws of probability cause a large number of particles to behave in a predictable manner.

If you want, we can open another thread, and perhaps attract real physicists who can explain this better than I can.

 

[Lowpro]

I am familiar with God of the Gaps. No need to go there. I read an article somewhere that speculated that some genetic mutation might occur though quantum probability.

The quantum world is based on probability that is individually random but extremely predictable for the group. Radioactive decay follows is such a process. The formula is:

{A divided by 2 power (t/T)}
A = original amount
T = half-life constant
t = time.
For hydrogen-7 T= {23 divided by 10 power 24} seconds
For tellurium-128 it is {2.2 times 10 power 24} years​

If A is 1,000 and T is 100 years then after 100 years there will be half remaining (500) and after 200 years there will half of that (250) and so on.

My question is: What controls the group process? After one particle has decayed, what is making the others wait the very specific time for the next one to decay?

Does this not strike anyone as strange? We know the law, but we haven’t a clue why the law works? Sorry - a little off topic.

That's actually kind of simple, kind of complex. The half-life is derived from the rate laws (zero order iirc and I don't know what came first: rate laws or half-time equations) so in truth it isn't strange because the law is a math function and independent of reality. If radioactivity didn't exist (it does due to weak force which is best estimated via probability mathematics/statistical mechanics) It just so happens that at the quantum level the maths for probability are a better tool (see statistical mechanics). So no it's not strange when you consider that the maths are not contextual to evidence and instead QM has elements best expressed in probabilities. And if it means anything EVERYTHING is best expressed in probabilities (to me at least, but I am biased towards statistics =X). I prefer to avoid mistaking Jesus in my toast.

What controls it? weak force interactions (question BTW: Beta decay I know is weak force but alpha...is that also a zero order mediated process? I know gamma is just energy state transition to emit electromagnetic gamma...). The math at best evaluates the reaction using zero order rate laws. It's not "perfect" but the estimate it valid. It's mysterious but not magical.

Quick disclaimer I am fine at chemistry and biochemistry but right about at particle physics...I have a grasp of stat mechanics but it's not experienced so I am no expert. But give me a textbook and pay for tuition and we'll see how far I get

 

[PartSkeptic]

So yes there is coding for the gross structural patterns and probably for some mid level structures as well, but not at the actual fine level of neurons and their axons and dendrites. With one notable exception, the very small area of the retina called the fovea, now which structures grow there is largely genetically coded for, but probably has some associative programming as well…

Now if you have an average of 7,000 connections for a neuron with other neurons, it would be every hard to determine genetically how they respond to each other, first the growth and development at the level is not going to be genetically coded for directly, and the responses can't be coded for with one trillion individual neurons.

Now what can be coded for is the numbers and placement of receptors and production and release of neurotransmitter for the individual cells in an area, But the 'programming' is a 'soft and fuzzy' sort of thing, neurons that fire in sequence tend to potentiate to each other and cause each other to fire together. Neurons that fire when the other neuron is not firing tend to attenuate and inhibit each other. And this is plastic between the neurons, so it is a sort of associative/conditioned programming.

Now which pathways have dominance and control is likely partly coded for, but also a function of the dispersion of receptors throughout the various networks and neurons. So certain mid brain areas involved in circadian rhythms and attention and arousal are likely to have some coding for their system control functions, but it will also be mediated by neurotransmitters and hormones that are alongside the actual neural functions.

And then things are associated and conditioned during development and that seems to influence growth patterns as well on the axon and dendrite levels.

Thanks for the info. I appreciate the huge amount of programming that takes place after the birth of a human baby.

But have you not compounded the problem of pre-birth programming for non-humans? The level of complexity you describe is enormous, and yet it must assemble itself into areas that are pre-programmed and yet are able to adapt with post-birth programming. And if damaged, can be self-healing.

 

[Lowpro]

Thanks for the info. I appreciate the huge amount of programming that takes place after the birth of a human baby.

But have you not compounded the problem of pre-birth programming for non-humans? The level of complexity you describe is enormous, and yet it must assemble itself into areas that are pre-programmed and yet are able to adapt with post-birth programming. And if damaged, can be self-healing.

Yeeeeeaaaaaarrrrsss of evolution baby!

Also you may continue to call it programming but it's not programming or pre-programming though I can understand that those words seem to fit. There's nothing pre-programmed in thermodynamics and if you want to think of the issue of complexity then consider Kolmogorov information theory but performed within the stochastic process of fitness.

 

[PartSkeptic]

They do not. Each particle has the same probability of decaying all the time. The normal laws of probability cause a large number of particles to behave in a predictable manner.

If you want, we can open another thread, and perhaps attract real physicists who can explain this better than I can.

You answered my question. I had forgotten I had answered this question for myself earlier.

Each particle is trying to decay. It is in an energy well. After a certain number of tries, it can escape despite having insufficient energy to jump out the well. And then a large number smooths the probability. Sorry for the digression.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Yeeeeeaaaaaarrrrsss of evolution baby!

Also you may continue to call it programming but it's not programming or pre-programming though I can understand that those words seem to fit. There's nothing pre-programmed in thermodynamics and if you want to think of the issue of complexity then consider Kolmogorov information theory but performed within the stochastic process of fitness.

Do you mind elaborating a bit?

I understand data compression particularly of images. I also understand that for cognition one could reduce visual images to a set of vectors or rules. It is still a vast amount of complex data.

I will celebrate evolution with you, but still retain my amazement at how it seems to have direction to have produced our world as it is. Just a comment - not a debating point.

I would add that the human mind is amazing. I could take a textbook and study it the night before a varsity exam (almost no prior study during the year) and pass an engineering exam the next day. I never realized until recently that this might be somewhat unusual. How does a brain commit so much knowledge to memory in such a short time, and then use it in an analytical fashion? I know other people seem to be able to do the same, so I do not consider myself unique.

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks for the info. I appreciate the huge amount of programming that takes place after the birth of a human baby.

But have you not compounded the problem of pre-birth programming for non-humans? The level of complexity you describe is enormous, and yet it must assemble itself into areas that are pre-programmed and yet are able to adapt with post-birth programming. And if damaged, can be self-healing.

Prebirth programming is limited to a set of reflexes, which can occur just in the PNS and the autonomic functions, what are you thinking of? Even the reflexes can be only minimally coded and then just fuzzy loops from there,

What prebirth programming? the plasticity takes on the self healing.

 

[Lowpro]

Do you mind elaborating a bit?

I understand data compression particularly of images. I also understand that for cognition one could reduce visual images to a set of vectors or rules. It is still a vast amount of complex data.

I will celebrate evolution with you, but still retain my amazement at how it seems to have direction to have produced our world as it is. Just a comment - not a debating point.

I would add that the human mind is amazing. I could take a textbook and study it the night before a varsity exam (almost no prior study during the year) and pass an engineering exam the next day. I never realized until recently that this might be somewhat unusual. How does a brain commit so much knowledge to memory in such a short time, and then use it in an analytical fashion? I know other people seem to be able to do the same, so I do not consider myself unique.

I wouldn't call it programming because of the nature of DNA (thermodynamically driven) and the chemistry involved. DNA doesn't really act as a program in a respectable sense (as a semantic definition it's barely passable and I think to almost all biologists it's only useful as a "lie to children") and acts as a thermodynamic facilitator. The sequence is analogous to Kolmogorov information in that it's ALL noise with no inherent meaning but what makes DNA interesting is that it exists in a reproductive continuum (and not even a perfect one; almost every individual has ~ 100 SNPs) and the sequence is determined by fitness because it happens to elicit chemical function (as they are wont to do...). Life is no exception to physics. It IS amazing; it keeps me up at night. But the complexity isn't what concerns me and rather it's the "omics" of biology. I have worked in molecular biology a few years, currently work between epidemiology and bioinformatics with metabolomics research and the complexity of DNA is nothing compared to the interaction(s) in metabolomics which are in turn nothing compared to the allostatic responses between and among tissues. These disciplines want to make you scream out "where is your God now!" both in jest but also in frustration.

But if you just keep focused on modeling the stochastic processes it gets manageable. Right about then you'll remember how to breathe. I don't quite know how to elaborate on it though because (A) my research is still ongoing but I'll tell you that it involves the anti inflammatory response on cell signalling in the wnt pathway. (B) These processes are not linear outcome processes and behave conditionally to some extent and we haven't identified many covariates. It's one of the reasons why biomarkers research is extremely hit-and-miss. Hopefully some of the work I do will maximize biomarker research.

Aaaaanyways as to memory I don't know much about quantitative studies of neurology with respect to memory. I am familiar with a few trials for memory including temporal lobe stimulation to improve visual recall so it seems that memory isn't really consistent across time. That is not to say there's an age curve but there's also an allostatic process that seems to influence recall. That kind of relates to my research but that's all I can really remember

 

[steenkh]

I will celebrate evolution with you, but still retain my amazement at how it seems to have direction to have produced our world as it is. Just a comment - not a debating point.

What direction are you thinking of? Our world is as it is because otherwise it would have been … different. There is no particular reason why it is not different, and there is nothing to suggest that humans have been pre-planned, or inevitable.

 

[Dinwar]

I understand data compression particularly of images.

This has nothing to do with evolution; it's over-extending a metaphore. Genes aren't computer programs. They do not compress anything. And the development of a young organism isn't the organism running a program. To think of it in these terms is to limit your understanding of the topic.

I get why you're doinig this, and why it's so hard to not do it, but you really do need to acknowledge that this is an entirely different field in order to understand it. Comparisons with computer programing lead to false assumptions and erronious predictions.

I will celebrate evolution with you, but still retain my amazement at how it seems to have direction to have produced our world as it is.

Evolution is best described as "trying almost all solutions to any given problem at the same time". There is no direction in evolution when you view it through time (note that I'm speaking of evolution as a whole, not individual organisms; directional selection is a real thing, but nothing is pushing the biosphere into any one direction). The fossil record shows NO directionallity in evolution as a whole, and in fact a careful study of the fossil record leads inevitably to the conclusion that we're what we are by, to a large extent, chance.

I could take a textbook and study it the night before a varsity exam (almost no prior study during the year) and pass an engineering exam the next day.

That ceratainly explains many of the problems I've had with numerous engineers.

You'll pass the exam, maybe--but you'll never retain the information. And given that engineering is the art of keeping people alive in an industrial society, that's a rather disconcerting notion.

Each particle is trying to decay.

You may want to look up something called the Pathetic Fallacy. No insult intended--I didn't name it, and always considered it poorly named. The gist is that the particles aren't "trying" to do anything, or "wanting" to do anything--they CANNOT try or want or anything of that sort. They're particles. It's important to not anthropomorphise in discussions of science, because anthropomorphisms tend to make numerous hidden presuppositions that will inevitably bite you in the intellectual butt.