How did DNA evolve?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » How did DNA evolve? » How did DNA evolve?

How did DNA evolve?
Evolution assumes DNA exists, but as yet no account has been provided as to how

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

How did DNA evolve?

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 10/09/09 - 03:50 AM:	#31
jeeprs wrote: Yes - but the point is, those goals are purely your own. If there is no intentional relationship between the cosmos and the human being, all goals are merely matters of subjective opinion, of what 'you' think is important. None of them are anchored in anything. None of them have any truth other than your opinion; so you end up with moral relativism. Take out the whole judeo-christian ethos, and all the philosophy and values associated with it - in fact, the spiritual basis of Western culture - and you end up with a purposeless universe. So humans can have their own goals in a purposeless universe, but they don't mean anything. Albert Camus saw this very clearly. So your own goal is just an own-goal. Kick it to your heart's content, but it means nothing other than whatever you can make it mean. (And you yourself might be able to make it mean a lot. I am not making a personal observation in saying this - it is nevertheless a valid general observation.) Boohoo. I see no intellectual-objections -- merely displeased-wriggling. Though you are confusing a few things. Whether the purpose is subjective to the agent, or somehow magically imposed by something other than an intentional agency ( ), the purposes would be no more or less factual in their own contexts, and neither will carry any sort of imperative, so who cares? If you want a purpose so much, then go prostrate yourself before a master, and claim your desired position in the universe as a serf. Dawkins will say "chance is nonsense. What is important is adaption - a lion will be a better hunter, a mole a better digger, whatever it is - higher, faster, whatever. But there is nothing guiding the process except for survival." No he wouldn't, that would be an absurd statement to make. He certainly wouldn't disregard chance in that sense, he would just not consider it the driving factor. Spontaneous genetic mutation, and happenstance is like the fuel, while natural selection (which includes far more than merely survival) is the motor. Without the fuel it goes nowhere, and without the motor it also ain't goin' far. Richard Dawkins has said that instead of saying "evolution by natural selection" what would be more accurate, if not a little long would be "evolution by means of various forms of natural selection pressures (including sexual, and kin, which can result in handicaps for survival for individuals), spontaneous genetic mutation, luck, and a some other stuff we probably don't know about yet." He wouldn't agree that as it stands, Darwinism explains everything about life, just 99% of it. You should read one of his books on the subject. So the process is guided by survival - no disputing that. But I might ask the question 'but what is the purpose of surviving?'. What's the purpose of blue? What is the purpose of rocks? What is the purpose of black holes? It's simply a category error. We strive for survival for the same reason that rocks roll down hill -- because the laws of nature have affected us in such a way, in relation to the environment that we have been rolling down this hill -- and we all get to stick our heads out, and take a peek at the scenery before it crushes us all upon its next rotation. Although you may figure that rocks roll down hill because that is their rightful position in the universe or some such. You might say that this is a meaningless question, nevertheless many people find it an impossible one to answer, and this has real consequences. Yeah, well, incoherent questions tend to be difficult to answer. Although the consequences of this is neither here nor there -- even if the truth resulted in sorrow for 90% of the population, that wouldn't make it false. Appeals to consequence are fallacious. One thing is for sure, it is not a scientific question, but a spiritual or philosophical one. I'd concede to spiritual. It may make sense if you believe in magic. Magic redeems all. Science will simply assume that survival is an aim, it won't ask the question 'why survive?' which is exactly why evolutionary and genetic theory ought not to try and take the place of spiritual or religious philosophy. Science assumes no such thing. Only intentional agents have aims and goals, and evolution is a process -- no actual relevant scientist (unless they are one-part creationist) would make that mistake. I have no plans to ever reproduce, I dislike children, I grew up with enough siblings to have had my fill of children. There is no imperative for me to conform to the process that bore me. All because gravity starts pulling me towards the floor hardly means I ought not resist it. Besides, I doubt that I have just the qualities necessary to insure our species' future survival. I'm pretty great, but not that great. Edited by Wosret on 10/09/09 - 04:00 AM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 461

Posted 10/09/09 - 03:50 AM:	#32
jeeprs wrote: yes well this extant organism is troubled indeed for reasons you might one day understand. That's twice you have accused me of misunderstanding, yet you seem unable to explicate a single point I have misunderstood. Snarky comments do not philosophy make. I (unlike some people) am open to debate. So, by all means, please tell me where I have gone so woefully wrong in my reasoning.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 10/09/09 - 03:58 AM:	#33
Arkady wrote: Snarky comments do not philosophy make. Perhaps not, but it sure is fun throwing them in between. Edited by Wosret on 10/09/09 - 04:15 AM
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/09/09 - 04:54 AM:	#34
jeeprs wrote: But as I understand it, mutations occur by chance; those that are adaptive tend to proliferate, those that are not adaptive, or destructive (the majority of changes) don't proliferate. So in that sense chance is a main driver of evolution. Jacques Monod put it as 'chance and necessity' - things come about by chance, but then there are inevitable consequences. The idea that purposeful changes occur is lamarckism, it it not? So that purpose, in this sense, is ruled out by evolutionary theory as we understand it. As are any ideas of teleology, things happening for a purpose other than the adaptive benefit that they provide. Lamarck developed the idea of folk heredity, which holds that if an organism acquires a trait, then it can pass that trait to its offspring. There is no more purpose there than anything else. And the modern theory of evolution does not say that things happen for the purpose of adaptive benefit. It says that traits survive and propogatve because of adaptive benefit, regardless of their source or nature. You are right that there is no teleolog to the modern theory of evolution. However, its a theory of evolution, not everything. But what of the idea that at some level, there is a tendency for particular types of thing to happen, so that they are lawful, even if they are, in another sense, random? Show us the evidence. So that, given a set of circumstances, some specific outcomes are likely. When you look at the complexities of organic chemistry, as remarked previously, there are hundreds of billions of ways for the same basic molecules to combine that are not going to culiminate in any kind of adaptive behaviours (therefore life). As it happens those that have favoured life have come about (obviously, otherwise we would not be having this dialog.) Now how could you prove, or disprove, an hypothesis about whether things are inclined to happen one way or another? Ideally, you would look for a world system which appeared to have 'all the ingredients' but was nonetheless barren. We are obviously not in a position to have that. One doesn't need favouring either way. Those chemicals that don't form life won't. Those that do form self-replicating structures that do eventually produce life are going to propogate and thrive. We can test theories of abiogenesis by attempting to recreate likely conditions on the Earth billions of years ago. Yet I hear an echo of the whole anthropic principle in this situation. Again I find myself asking, this idea of randomness, or of chance, is being given an awful lot of responsibility in this picture. Take the time to read some of the literature on evolution by biologists. There is a lot more than chance going on. Now as you have already pointed out, my knowledge of biology is pretty minimal, but I still think this is a valid philosophical question. What's the question? I have read quite a bit of Richard Dawkins, there are many areas where I would never consider arguing against him, but in terms of this specific question - the nature of the role of chance and consequent adaptive behaviours in the evolution of life - I think there are major questions. But how are you to know if the science has already answered these questions? I found in an article related to that Wired article that was quoted above: "a growing number of scientists do say that neo-Darwinian evolution doesn’t explain certain jumps in biological complexity: from single-celled to multicellular organisms, from single organisms to entire communities. The jumps — saltations, in complexity parlance — appear to be non-linear emergent phenomena, the result of networked interactions that produce self-organization at ever higher levels. From this perspective, Darwinian evolution is a mechanism of a higher universal law, perhaps even a variant on the second law of thermodynamics." http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/...2/complexity-theo/[/quote] Unfortunately, I haven't read Woese's work, so I really can't comment. But there is no mention of forms in that article.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

Quiet Observer
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 20

Posted 10/09/09 - 05:11 AM:	#35
Perhaps even intelligently designed?

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 562

Posted 10/09/09 - 05:16 AM:	#36
Quiet Observer wrote: Perhaps even intelligently designed? I don't think that there is a definitive way to differentiate intelligent design from 'the way it is', at least at this point. It may be that we are ultimately unable to decide. Science can only say that this is the way it is, but it seems beyond its reach to find the omega point question 'why'.
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 10/09/09 - 06:38 AM:	#37
Quiet Observer wrote: Perhaps even intelligently designed? That was the working assumption for quite sometime before science really took off -- just like the flatness of the earth, and geocentricism. We have about equal chance of going back.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

jeeprs
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 17, 2009

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 59

Posted 10/09/09 - 04:42 PM:	#38
Dawkins:The animals that are best at whatever they do-hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging-whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes. It's because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away from lions, and fish are so good at swimming. From http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Scie...-With-Richard-Dawkins.aspx Perfectly true - as far as it goes. But my question is, why the upward thrust of evoution towards greater and greater levels of intelligence and awareness? Why not stop at fish, lions, or for that matter pond-scum or giant suaropods? Is that question within scope for evoutionary science? I think not, actually. But evolutionary scientists will usually insist on answering it, anyway, and in the negative. As for me, I rather like Alan Watt's answer: We do not "come into" into this world; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree. As the ocean "waves," the universe "peoples." Every individual is an expression of the whole realm of nature, a unique action of the total universe. This fact is rarely, if ever, experienced by most individuals. Even those who know it to be true in theory do not sense or feel it, but continue to be aware of themselves as isolated "egos" inside bags of skin. So 'life has a tendency to evolve towards awareness'. This is not necessarily created by God, although to those who believe it, I have no objection. It is, however, lawful, in a much greater sense than that supposed by scientific reductionism, which attempts to explain all of the higher-level phenomena according to the laws of physics; there are laws operating at many levels, as per the quote from Wired magazine referred to previously. He (dawkins) wouldn't agree that as it stands, Darwinism explains everything about life, just 99% of it. You should read one of his books on the subject. I have recently read the God Delusion. Certainly he says that Darwinism and genetic theory explains enough to confidentaly declare that the spiritual basis of Western civilization is a delusion. That is a pretty big claim to make, in my view. I agree with him, and with the general idea, that we certainly had to liberate ourselves from religious autocracy and dogma and I certainly appreciate living in a secular society. But I think Dawkins goes considerably further than that. What's the purpose of blue? What is the purpose of rocks? What is the purpose of black holes? It's simply a category error. The only category error in any of this consists of offering scientific answers to philosophical questions. Asking about the meaning of life, whether the human being has any meaning in the great scheme of things, whether evolution has tendencies towards greater awareness, and so on, are perfectly rational and legitimate questions which have occupied philosophers, and many other people, for millenia. As it happens, in our historical context, the greater part of our cultural tradition is now thought to have been superseded by scientific discoveries which are held to prove that 'the more the universe seems comprehensible the more it also seems pointless'. I reject that attitude; the very fact that we can comprehend it to the degree to which we do is highly significant, in my view. As regards evidence: we all see the same evidence, it is how we interpret the evidence that differs. I am reading a very interesting book: Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe , by Simon Conway Morris, which makes a very good case, rather too detailed to summarize here, for the directional tendency of evolution. This writer is a professor of paleontology at Cambridge, and no friend to creationism. He is religious, as am I, although in rather a different way. And neither he nor I am interested in 'proving that God exists' (and in fact in my case, I don't believe that.) That's twice you have accused me of misunderstanding, yet you seem unable to explicate a single point I have misunderstood. Snarky comments do not philosophy make. I (unlike some people) am open to debate. So, by all means, please tell me where I have gone so woefully wrong in my reasoning. Apologies for the sarcasm. I will try and explain again. I reacted to the statement 'the purpose of surviving is reproducing' which seems tautological. As I had already said, 'science will assume that survival is an aim'. And it is a perfectly sound, pragmatic assumption to make. But philosophy will ask that question: what is life all about, is it all about anything, or is just about what I do?...and so on. This is an illustration of the way that scientific questions and philosophical questions, operate at a different level and ask different kinds of questions. So to say 'the purpose of surviving is reproducing' is quite sound from a scientific viewpoint; but you can still ask the question 'what is the point', especially, as a lot of philosophically-inclined scientists seem to insist, we humans are just an accident of history. Christians see an over-arching narrative (one which I don't accept, incidentally). I have already indicated I believe there is a certain direcional tendency in evolution, towards greater awareness. But I think these are philosophical rather than scientific questions, and I think there is a legitimate difference between the two.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 461

Posted 10/09/09 - 05:23 PM:	#39
jeeprs wrote: Apologies for the sarcasm. I will try and explain again. I reacted to the statement 'the purpose of surviving is reproducing' which seems tautological. No...it's not at all tautological, in fact. Something like "the purpose of surviving is to survive" would be a tautology. jeeprs wrote: As I had already said, 'science will assume that survival is an aim'. And it is a perfectly sound, pragmatic assumption to make. This is not an "assumption" at all. It is an observation of countless organisms and their behavior. jeeprs wrote: But philosophy will ask that question: what is life all about, is it all about anything, or is just about what I do?...and so on. You are conflating the biological and experiential notions of life. For instance, we can say "there is life in the Marianas Trench" to describe the former, and "he has no life" to describe the latter. jeeprs wrote: This is an illustration of the way that scientific questions and philosophical questions, operate at a different level and ask different kinds of questions. Exactly: they are different questions. But, I would add that many philosophers of biology have given deep thought to the "purpose" of biological life. jeeprs wrote: So to say 'the purpose of surviving is reproducing' is quite sound from a scientific viewpoint; but you can still ask the question 'what is the point', especially, as a lot of philosophically-inclined scientists seem to insist, we humans are just an accident of history. Yes, I agree that it is sound scientifically. It is also sound philosophically. Again, when we ask "what is the point of my life" no one would seriously suggest that a person would merely say "to spread as many copies of my genes into the next generation as possible" (unless you're one of the Duggars, that is). Humans have evolved intentionality, free will (or something like free will), etc. In other words, as sentient beings we have evolved out of our biological straitjacket. Though we of course desire to spread our genes, it is not our summum bonum. And we are more less an accident of history, if by "accident" you mean that human evolution was not preordained. jeeprs wrote: I have already indicated I believe there is a certain directional tendency in evolution, towards greater awareness. But I think these are philosophical rather than scientific questions, and I think there is a legitimate difference between the two. How is there a difference? Establishing what trends (if any) there are in evolution is perfectly amenable to scientific analysis. It is debatable (and debated) if evolution trends towards greater complexity (I don't know about "self-awareness"). The answer to that question hinges on many things, including how one wishes to define "complexity."
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/09/09 - 05:44 PM:	#40
jeeprs wrote: Perfectly true - as far as it goes. But my question is, why the upward thrust of evoution towards greater and greater levels of intelligence and awareness? Why not stop at fish, lions, or for that matter pond-scum or giant suaropods? Is that question within scope for evoutionary science? I think not, actually. What are you talking about? First, what is your evidence that all populations of organisms always increase in intelligence and awareness? Second, even if this is true, isn't there an advantage to intelligence and awareness in almost every situation? But evolutionary scientists will usually insist on answering it, anyway, and in the negative. As for me, I rather like Alan Watt's answer: That's not an answer. It doesn't even have anything to do with the question! So 'life has a tendency to evolve towards awareness'. What is the evidence of this? Watt doesn't seem to say that, at least not in that quote (from what source we do not know). This is not necessarily created by God, although to those who believe it, I have no objection. It is, however, lawful, in a much greater sense than that supposed by scientific reductionism, which attempts to explain all of the higher-level phenomena according to the laws of physics; there are laws operating at many levels, as per the quote from Wired magazine referred to previously. The laws discovered for evolution are not, as of yet, reduced to physics. So you should have no problem with them, yet. The only category error in any of this consists of offering scientific answers to philosophical questions. Dawkins was providing a philosophical answer. He is saying that purpose must be provided in certain contexts. The universe as a whole fails to meet the proper context. As regards evidence: we all see the same evidence, it is how we interpret the evidence that differs. Frankly, I find that this claim is made quite often by people who want to lie to their audience. I fear that you have been lied to. I am reading a very interesting book: Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe , by Simon Conway Morris, which makes a very good case, rather too detailed to summarize here, for the directional tendency of evolution. This writer is a professor of paleontology at Cambridge, and no friend to creationism. He is religious, as am I, although in rather a different way. And neither he nor I am interested in 'proving that God exists' (and in fact in my case, I don't believe that.) Ok, this is a decent source for us to look for evidence for your claims. I still suspect that he is ignoring, or glossing over, significant evidence about the nature of the course of evolution over time.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.