Force

[akhalteke]

My prayers go out to the innocent civilians that are caught in the crossfire.

 

What the hell good is that going to do?

 

Alot more than you bitching on the internet will.

 

Wrong!

 

Prove it cumdumpster.

[Stefan]

1) No I am not.

 

2) No

 

3) No he didn't. He said "Hiroshima then Nagasaki."

 

 

Then you believe the Japanese war could not have been stopped by US forces over time.

 

Your original statement said, "The use of force is one of a final means to carry out one's will once all other means have been exhaustivly and futively tried." Military historians believed the Japanese war could have been won by US forces, but over time, and yes, many, many lives lost--but yet they would be mainly military forces and NOT innocent civilians. The ending of the Japanese war was quickened by the use of Hiroshima and then Nagasaki. Many claim it was to save lives. A tradeoff for Hiroshima...how many military lives would have been lost versus innocent civilians lives lost. This means the United States did NOT "exhaustivly and futively" try to end the war militarily.

 

Hiroshima AND Nagasaki both would be in your prayers.

 

Read a book. It could have, but after much more ground fighting and to most estimates, another year of fighting.

 

Um...I have. Which goes to my point on Hiroshima. The choice for more military dead or the killing of innocent civilians. Which would you choose?

[tvashtarkatena]

And that is precisely the point. All the speculation in the world about how many soldier's were saved by The Bomb doesn't change the horrific nature of detonating nuclear weapons over two civilian cities. Civilians should never be targeted in wartime, period, particularly with such massive and indescriminate weapons.

 

 

[j_b]

So let me get this correct, what you're saying is that altruism is an essential part of evolutionary biology. I do believe you're talking out your ass.

 

You are confusing 'cooperation' with 'altruism'. Every member of a community gains from cooperating; cooperation isn't altruistic.

[akhalteke]

So let me get this correct, what you're saying is that altruism is an essential part of evolutionary biology. I do believe you're talking out your ass.

 

You are confusing 'cooperation' with 'altruism'. Every member of a community gains from cooperating; cooperation isn't altruistic.

 

We call that symbiosis.

[STP]

So let me get this correct, what you're saying is that altruism is an essential part of evolutionary biology. I do believe you're talking out your ass.

 

You are confusing 'cooperation' with 'altruism'. Every member of a community gains from cooperating; cooperation isn't altruistic.

 

I'm gonna try to recap. Ok, so first of all, I start out by saying: "...one way to look at the world as we know it..."

 

Then I made a statement about 'Darwinian' intending to imply its classical meaning but one that is primarily kept alive by Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene guy). The basis was that 'competition' and/or other antagonistic behavior such as predator-prey relationships (eating) is an evolutionary 'race' (but in reality it seems more like that example of the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland). There are 'costs' associated to maintain reproductive survival. But here's the kicker: Even though it appears that what drives evolution at the species level appears to be undirected is there some 'teleology of life' and does it operate as epiphenomenon or emergent property or as some 'Grand Design'.

 

Ok, you can probably guess which camp I'm in but I'm leaving enough room for synthesis.

 

(Now, I’m a shitty writer so you might get lost but here goes…)

 

For instance, the history of life: 4.6 bya earth formed (somewhere early on meteorites/comets/debris hit early earth; one huge fucker swipes the area known today as the Pacific, throwing debris into earth orbit and which coalesces as our moon), 3.8 bya signs of 1st life in fossil record…then we have up to six formations of supercontinent (Proto-Pangea, Pangea). From early earth primarily dominated by CO2 from degassing volcanoes there is a secular trend through time and operating through both organic and inorganic feedback loops for CO2 drawdown and buildup of O2. Superimposed on the large scale trend are smaller scale trends driven by exogenic (astronomical like Milankovitch cycles) and endogenic processes so that O2 fluctuates around 21%, sometimes higher during efficient oceanic upwelling (enhanced carbon burial), evidence of wildfires, etc but SIGNIFICANTLY changes in life appear in fossil record. Now, basically there are two organism trends, one in invertebrates (exoskeleton, size and nervous system restriction) and the other in vertebrates (endoskeleton, etc)—filling of niches by convergent evolution as these two lines approach the same problem from different angles (no prior directedness implied here)—for instance, the evolution of the eye, flight, etc…invasion of land preceded by plant and perhaps fungal life (plant/fungal symbiosis beginning as parasitism or infection). Overall biological evolution precedes with something you could call ‘terraforming’, for instance, formation of soils, not entirely biologically mediated but sure as hell enhanced by microbes, for instance. On land you see weathering of continental rocks that yield silica to the seas which in turn provides raw material for things like diatoms—there’s enough variety in life from the formation of the major phyla (bauplans) during the preCambrian (Ediacaran) so that life is ‘fruitful and multiplies’…but problems remain difficult to explain like the ‘sudden’ appearance in the fossil record and adaptive radiation of mammals although precursors are evident by looking at body parts such as the ear (mosaic evolution) but yeah problems because limitations of preservation in the fossil record--'rapid speciation followed by stasis'(punctuated equilbrium of Gould & Eldridge). Thinkers outside the box like Hoyle suggest ‘seeding’ from space…Some other suggestions for change on macroevolution scale include something along the lines of Fischer-Tropsch reactions with major plate tectonics resulting in production of oil and other organic compounds some of which may be mutagenic….?....Development of nervous system coincident with development of senses and body changes for locomotion through spatial dimension…bigger brains…climate change….picture of earth from space…water on mars…quantum computers...etc….

 

Do ya get the picture??

 

Anyway I have nothing against Tvash, Gary, or anyone else…just clarification nothing more. So the question is: “Is there a ‘teleology of life’ at one scale of observation (or ‘Grand Design’ but different of course from fundamentalist, literalist Bible thumpers conceptions of our world) while having another mechanism at another scale? There I said it.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

So let me get this correct, what you're saying is that altruism is an essential part of evolutionary biology. I do believe you're talking out your ass.

 

You are confusing 'cooperation' with 'altruism'. Every member of a community gains from cooperating; cooperation isn't altruistic.

 

We call that symbiosis.

 

Cooperation is not symbiosis. Symbiosis is mutually beneficial evolution. Bees and flowers, etc. Cooperation in the animal kingdom is often (not necessarily always) a conscious choice that results in increased chances of survival for the participants. It requires no physiological/evolutionary change, only a behavioral one.

[tvashtarkatena]

So the question is: “Is there a ‘teleology of life’ at one scale of observation (or ‘Grand Design’ but different of course from fundamentalist, literalist Bible thumpers conceptions of our world) while having another mechanism at another scale? There I said it.

 

It seems as though the only predermined grand design for non sentient life is that it will continue to obey the few simple rules that drive evolution. Habitable niches will be filled, hierachical complexity will increase as much as the environment allows. What that looks like at any given point is not predictable.

 

Sentient life, with it's ability to make decisions, is different, in that it can attempt to seek a desired future state. The purpose for doing so is self defined, and therefore subjective, although it may also be advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint...or not. This is particularly true for superorganisms like human societies. The actualization of such an evolution is still not predictable, of course, and the lack of consensus as to what that purpose is is always an inhibiting factor. In the end, however, regardless of where life goes along the way, nature always gets the last word: an asteroid strikes, the sun goes nova, the universe flies apart, everything ends. Is there a purpose to a universe destined for such a cold, dead future?

[j_b]

But here's the kicker: Even though it appears that what drives evolution at the species level appears to be undirected is there some 'teleology of life' and does it operate as epiphenomenon or emergent property or as some 'Grand Design'.

 

To my knowledge, there is no evidence that warrant asking whether there is a teleology of life. Might as well ponder the role of the little green men in evolution.

[STP]

To my knowledge, there is no evidence that warrant asking whether there is a teleology of life. Might as well ponder the role of the little green men in evolution.

 

Ha,ha,ha….curiosity. Don’t you have it? Besides do you understand the meaning of the word, cosmos?

 

In a world of increasing specialty characterized by research teams, it’s refreshing to look at the life of one of the last great cross-disciplinarians: Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky and his Revolutionary Theory of the Biosphere and the Noosphere

 

BTW, have you heard about Terence McKenna’s hyper-dimensional elves? He postulates alien intelligence with communication perhaps mediated by fungal agency (The Mushroom Speaks).

 

Craziness? Sure, considering he was tripping on DMT. But what’s important is the experiential nature of these entities, they exist inasmuch as other projections exist, things like dreams and visions which do affect conscious life.

 

[j_b]

To my knowledge, there is no evidence that warrant asking whether there is a teleology of life. Might as well ponder the role of the little green men in evolution.

 

Ha,ha,ha….curiosity. Don’t you have it? Besides do you understand the meaning of the word, cosmos?

 

I think I am a curious person. But I also think the object of curiosity shouldn't be random. If it was it'd be mostly a waste of time, no?

 

I know about the universe but 'cosmos' sounds a little subject to interpretation.

 

I don't know about Vernadsky (I am not much into life sciences). I'll check out your link.

[Fairweather]

 

It seems as though the only predermined grand design for non sentient life is that it will continue to obey the few simple rules that drive evolution. Habitable niches will be filled, hierachical complexity will increase as much as the environment allows. What that looks like at any given point is not predictable.

 

Sentient life, with it's ability to make decisions, is different, in that it can attempt to seek a desired future state. The purpose for doing so is self defined, and therefore subjective, although it may also be advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint...or not. This is particularly true for superorganisms like human societies. The actualization of such an evolution is still not predictable, of course, and the lack of consensus as to what that purpose is is always an inhibiting factor. In the end, however, regardless of where life goes along the way, nature always gets the last word: an asteroid strikes, the sun goes nova, the universe flies apart, everything ends. Is there a purpose to a universe destined for such a cold, dead future?

 

Well said. Not a dumbass. This time.

[billcoe]

Well said. Not a dumbass. This time.

 

I can only imaging that was said with a choking Ghhhrrgggg sound there?

 

I think T must have actually been reading our stuff or something different, cause he's starting to agree with what we say and also make sense as well. :-)

[Fairweather]

New meds?

[STP]

So the question is: “Is there a ‘teleology of life’ at one scale of observation (or ‘Grand Design’ but different of course from fundamentalist, literalist Bible thumpers conceptions of our world) while having another mechanism at another scale? There I said it.

 

It seems as though the only predermined grand design for non sentient life is that it will continue to obey the few simple rules that drive evolution. Habitable niches will be filled, hierachical complexity will increase as much as the environment allows. What that looks like at any given point is not predictable.

 

Sentient life, with it's ability to make decisions, is different, in that it can attempt to seek a desired future state. The purpose for doing so is self defined, and therefore subjective, although it may also be advantageous from an evolutionary standpoint...or not. This is particularly true for superorganisms like human societies. The actualization of such an evolution is still not predictable, of course, and the lack of consensus as to what that purpose is is always an inhibiting factor. In the end, however, regardless of where life goes along the way, nature always gets the last word: an asteroid strikes, the sun goes nova, the universe flies apart, everything ends. Is there a purpose to a universe destined for such a cold, dead future?

 

Biological evolution does not appear to have teleos (absence of teleos is the postmodern condition) but you can observe progressive change in response to environmental conditions. For instance, look at the evolution of terrestrial plants and of vertebrates.

 

The basis pattern has been the origination of gymnosperms ('naked' seed) followed by the angiosperms (flowering plants). Another way to look at that is as a chemical system (c3 plants followed by c4 plants). So essentially you're seeing the increasing efficiency of the carbon fixation mechanism. Caveat: Even though there is innovation, representatives of a precursor lineage still exist.

 

Now, terrestrial vertebrates. External birth (eggs) followed by live birth. These appearances appears to be correlated with environmental change such as co2 buildup or o2 buildup and their consequent, myriad changes. So my understanding focuses on innovations in reproduction so that the gene vehicle is more protected from environmental threat.

 

But that's not the complete picture or perhaps not representative of what is really going on. As mentioned above, we're still surrounded by representatives of the 'past' so maybe we need to look at this from an ecosystem approach with us as the leading edge.

 

If you look at vertebrates, the mammalian innovation is revolutionary with respect to the next stage. Live birth engender neoteny or a long period of gestation. Ergo, larger brain (but you don't want it too big!). Also, with certain humans you see a longer period of maturation. So here, cultural evolution appears to begin to take precedence over biological evolution (some suggest organic life followed by inorganic beings). It's like a journey away from our mortal coils and what appears to be driving it is the propagating force of information...We are a bridge.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2009 by STP

[mkporwit]

Biological evolution does not appear to have teleios (absence of teleios is the postmodern condition)

Seeing as you appear to be using it as a noun, shouldn't that be telos instead of teleios? Telos is the noun, meaning purpose, direction, whereas teleios is the adjective form, meaning complete, perfect, brought to its end, etc...

[Fairweather]

Great story (10 second ad, story is about 4 minutes) on recent lab successes getting synthesized RNA to self-replicate--and even mutate.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=99132608&m=99135715

[JayB]

Great story (10 second ad, story is about 4 minutes) on recent lab successes getting synthesized RNA to self-replicate--and even mutate.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=99132608&m=99135715

 

Haven't listened to the story yet - but that's potentially very significant.

 

At the genome level, the distinction between what's viral and what's human becomes very blurry on account of the fact that roughly half of our chromosomes are composed of endogenous retrovirus's and various other self-replicating elements that aren't too far removed from self-replicating RNA.

 

Quite a bit of interesting material out there on the role that retroviral genes appear to have played in the evolutionary genesis of the placenta, etc out there if you're interested...

 

"Gene conversion and purifying selection of a placenta-specific ERV-V envelope gene during simian evolution.

Kjeldbjerg AL, Villesen P, Aagaard L, Pedersen FS.

 

Department of Molecular Biology, University of Aarhus, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. alk@mb.au.dk

 

BACKGROUND: Most human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) invaded our genome at least 25 million years ago. The majority of the viral genes are degenerated, since no selection preserves them within the genome. However, a few intact and very old HERV genes exist, and likely are beneficial for the host. We here address evolutionary aspects of two HERV-V envelope genes, ENVV1 and ENVV2, located in tandem and containing a long open reading frame. RESULTS: The ENVV2 gene is preserved with an intact reading frame during simian evolution, but none of the ENVV genes are found in the prosimian species tested. While we observe many transposon insertions in the gag and pol regions of the ERV-V2 provirus, the ENVV2 genes have escaped transposon crossfire in all species tested. Additional analysis of nucleotide substitutions provides further strong evidence of purifying selection on the ENVV2 gene during primate evolution. The other copy, ENVV1, seems to be involved in gene conversion of the major part of the envelope. Furthermore, ENVV1 and ENVV2 show placenta-specific expression in human and a baboon species. CONCLUSION: Our analyses show that ERV-V entered our genome after the split between simian and prosimian primates. Subsequent purifying selection and gene conversion have preserved two copies of the ENVV envelope gene in most species. This is the first case of gene conversion involving long open reading frames in HERVs. Together with the placenta-specific expression of the human and baboon ENVV1 and ENVV2 envelope genes, these data provide strong evidence of a beneficial role for the host."

 

Full Paper:

 

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18826608

Edited January 9, 2009 by JayB

[JayB]

The literature on the evolution of the immune system also makes for fascinating reading, and featured prominently in the Dover trial:

 

http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/immune/immune_evo_annotated_bib.html

[tvashtarkatena]

Well said. Not a dumbass. This time.

 

I can only imaging that was said with a choking Ghhhrrgggg sound there?

 

I think T must have actually been reading our stuff or something different, cause he's starting to agree with what we say and also make sense as well. :-)

 

I've always made sense. You've just evolved to the point where you can comprehend it.

Edited January 9, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Now, terrestrial vertebrates. External birth (eggs) followed by live birth. These appearances appears to be correlated with environmental change such as co2 buildup or o2 buildup and their consequent, myriad changes. So my understanding focuses on innovations in reproduction so that the gene vehicle is more protected from environmental threat.

 

....given the current environment. Rapid environmental changes can and have thrown a monkey wrench into this process: winners suddenly become losers. Early methanogens, which may have once been the dominant organism on early Earth, and are now anomalies relegated to a few hot springs, come to mind. Paleolithic megafauna are a more recent example.

 

What's interesting about the evolution of intelligence is that it enables all species, not just the intelligent one, to transend their physical boundaries. By way of example, the genomes for all life on earth could be transmitted to another star system and 'reconstituted' there (presuming there is someone on the other end to do the reconstitution).

 

Even more interesting than biological evolution, which is amazing but a product of a fairly well known and well tested mechanism, is the inorganic evolution of the universe to create the conditions of life. Why do we live in a universe of physical laws and constants that just happened to have created galaxies, stars, supernovas, organic molecules in amorphous interstellar life, solar systems, earth like planets....? What mechanism created or selected such an ideal universe (from many other hostile universes)?

 

 

[STP]

Viruses as facultators of transpecific or transgenic change?

 

In the traditional conception, for example, allopatric speciation, mutations have to occur on population level (because one hopeful monster has to have a mate to pass on the beneficial mutation). Usually there's a large scale impetus over time like plate tectonics. A period of global change should see extinctions, adaptations radiation into emptied niches, and speciation.

 

Do viruses provide some kind of mechanism for a 'stealth' change to occur that appears to arrive 'suddenly'?

 

Seems I recall reading about a researcher (female at UW) who several years ago posited a hypothesis about the male genome originally acting as an invader (the egg reacts as if it is repelling a foreign body).

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

There have been at least 5 major mass extinctions previously, and it seems that rapid environmental change outpaced evolution's ability to cope with it, resulting in periods where many niches were relatively empty for a time. Basically, the reset button was pressed in many locales. This resulted in previously dominant species becoming extinct or being marginalized, replaced with every different forms of life. Ocean acidification is one such mechanism that can reset the global environment very quickly; either due to volcanism or due to carbon emissions...or both, if Yellowstone suddenly decides to say I Love You.

 

I think viral gene migration (there are other mechanisms as well) is more prevalent in plants; hence one of the primary hazards of GM crops, many of which are sterile.

 

I larger organisms like mammals, it seems like cross breeding competes with mutation as a major evolutionary driver, hence the bushiness of many family trees. Goldbar, WA comes to mind.