Natural selection and the need to investigate complementary approaches

[Invisible Gorilla]

The concepts of evolution and natural selection have undeniably played a major role in deeping our understanding of biological mechanisms over the last century (e.g in the context of understanding antibiotic resistance, specie extinction.... etc).
Furthermore, many new branches which operate on the principles of natural selection have formed in different specialities (e.g evolutionary psychology). Depite of this, it seems to me that natural selection (or the linear transmission of favorable genes from parents to offspring) by itself does not suffice to explain how living things could reach their current state. This is mainly because, in certain contexts, applying natural selection's principles' comes after observing certain patterns in living species and attempting to investigate if there is a link between these patterns. Such patterns are subsequently explained in the context of a common ancestor and selection pressure. Obviously that's one of our most suitable current approaches. However, it leaves a significant room for bias and mis-interpretation.

Due to our limited knowledge of the details of how natural selection in specie X occured to give their current phenotype, some gaps might remain and when such gaps are compiled together, a considerable amount of bias may arise.

Ronald Coase said "If you torture the data long enough it will confess". I believe he said it in another context but I think it can be applied to the use (or perhaps the potential misuse) of the principles of natural selection when extrapolating.

My idea basically is that if our CURRENT level of understanding of evolution isn't as thorough as we might hope, how freely should we apply natural selection in different situations ? Should its principles be exptrapolated in a manner similar to the manner it is being extrapolated nowadays for newly discovered species or fossils ? Shouldn't there be more focus on filling those gaps/details before doing this much amount of extrapolations ? Did all of these controversial public debates shift scientists' attention away from the need to explore other complementary mechanisms or the detail, towards trying tomake even extrapolations to support this theory ? Did the Evolution vs. Creationism politics cause scientists to shift their attention away from investigating such complementary mechanisms for natural selection?

What do you think about this matter ?

This should not be interpreted as an attack on the evolution, in an attempt to justify creationism. Nor should it be interpreted as an attack on creationism. Perhaps, it would be better if we considered this particular issue as a critical assessment towards the practical aspects of how evolution is being studied and investigated.

PS: by "Complementary mechanisms" I mean other known and still unkown mechanisms that contributed to the current state of organisms. Some of the known complementary mechanisms include the parallel transmission of information between organisms of the same specie to increase their chance of survival. This information might be genetic in the context of micro-organisms or learning in the case of humans. I am not saying that these mechanisms have not been investigated in some contexts. What I am trying to say is that there seems to be less focus on deepening our understanding of them and more focus on hypothesizing more scenarios where natural selection might be applied.

 

[Sir Eus Lee]

If you imagine something simple like a muscle, how if you don't work it out every day, it begins to atrophy, or how people and things tend to work towards the lowest way of effort, all these things are basically engines that embody entropy. Everything will decay as far as it can.

Natural selection is another one of these engines. It is another engine that embodies a universal law. Which is basically, the best worker for a job is going to replace a worse one. For example, single replacement in chemistry. If you look at toothpaste, which is sodium fluoride, the fluorine switches with the calcium, making a tighter barrier on the outside of the tooth. In a job, if a better worker comes along, why would the company not fire the worst worker and higher be new one? Natural selection describes this process. With a wide variety of "workers", and a limited amount of job openings (limited food supply), the best worker is going to thrive and the worst one is going to get fired. Through genetics and reproduction, the cycle is perpetuated so that the next generation is introduced to go through the same application process.

As to where the cycle began, that's hard to say. But natural selection is just another embodiment of a natural law, and it just seems right that it would be accurate.

I think the context does depend though. If there isn't a limited budget, then why would the company not hire everybody they could? or if suddenly a competitor comes out with an unbeatable product, what's going to stop your company from dying away? Things like this that could happen to species, such as some aspects getting out of control, could produce weird results. Or even within the bounds of equilibriums, it doesn't stop mutations from getting pretty spunky.

Also, we don't know much scientifically about Jungian Cognitive Functions, but how much have we extrapolated now? Much more than is scientifically proven. Particle physics/theoretical physics and string theory are 2(3) areas that theory is jumping ahead of science. Tesla predicted this age without much to prove it would ever happen. So then, is it all a lie?

I think it becomes unbound when you start to make assumptions that don't have sufficient theory behind them to support the conclusion. Not necessarily evidence, but that don't have sufficient reason.

This is all conjecture, but it's what I got.

I also don't think I exactly understood your question, but whatevs.

 

[Invisible Gorilla]

If you imagine something simple like a muscle, how if you don't work it out every day, it begins to atrophy, or how people and things tend to work towards the lowest way of effort, all these things are basically engines that embody entropy. Everything will decay as far as it can.

Natural selection is another one of these engines. It is another engine that embodies a universal law. Which is basically, the best worker for a job is going to replace a worse one. For example, single replacement in chemistry. If you look at toothpaste, which is sodium fluoride, the fluorine switches with the calcium, making a tighter barrier on the outside of the tooth. In a job, if a better worker comes along, why would the company not fire the worst worker and higher be new one? Natural selection describes this process. With a wide variety of "workers", and a limited amount of job openings (limited food supply), the best worker is going to thrive and the worst one is going to get fired. Through genetics and reproduction, the cycle is perpetuated so that the next generation is introduced to go through the same application process.

As to where the cycle began, that's hard to say. But natural selection is just another embodiment of a natural law, and it just seems right that it would be accurate.

I think the context does depend though. If there isn't a limited budget, then why would the company not hire everybody they could? or if suddenly a competitor comes out with an unbeatable product, what's going to stop your company from dying away? Things like this that could happen to species, such as some aspects getting out of control, could produce weird results. Or even within the bounds of equilibriums, it doesn't stop mutations from getting pretty spunky.

Also, we don't know much scientifically about Jungian Cognitive Functions, but how much have we extrapolated now? Much more than is scientifically proven. Particle physics/theoretical physics and string theory are 2(3) areas that theory is jumping ahead of science. Tesla predicted this age without much to prove it would ever happen. So then, is it all a lie?

I think it becomes unbound when you start to make assumptions that don't have sufficient theory behind them to support the conclusion. Not necessarily evidence, but that don't have sufficient reason.

This is all conjecture, but it's what I got.

I also don't think I exactly understood your question, but whatevs.

Thank you for your reply. You're making very good points, but I would like to clarify what I meant by my original post.

Natural selection, as you've nicely pointed out, refers to how certain genes are selected by the environment, enabling them to be transfered from living organisms into their offspring. My main concern, though, is regarding what happens during the life of the offspring before their genes are selected. In other words, the mechanisms that underlie what types of genes might exist in the population before the selection pressure is applied, and some of the existing genes are favored.

For example, bacteria can replicate by cell division. Natural selection favors those more useful genes when they replicate so "better" bacteria survive while the others die. The result is a population of more environmentally adapted bacteria so to speak. However, it was discovered that bacteria can also pass their genes without replicating but via sexual reproduction. Through a process known as conjugation, a "male" bacteria passes a copy of the "better" genes to the "female" bacteria and as a result, both bacteria end up with a set of the more environmentally suitable genes. No new generation of bacteria supposedly results from this and this might be thought of as a "parallel" method for the flow of genetic information (in a very broad sense, of course). I understand this is not exactly a good argument (since it includes the passage of genes by its definition) but I mentioned it as it's in some ways relevant to the following idea, which might provide a plausible possibility ...

Supposedly "parallel" method for information flow can be seen in humans. According to VS Ramachandran, mirror neurones might have contributed to evolution in such a way. It's explained in this ted talk:
https://www.ted.com/talks/vs_ramachandran_the_neurons_that_shaped_civilization

Now even though his theories regarding mirror neurones are indeed controversial, it might allow us to entertain the idea that understanding the possible mechanisms that might happen before the favourable genes are selected might be important. For example, not only that the fittest survives but also how the 'fittness' became wide spread in the population before the selection.
Unfortunately, that cannot be investigated in the amount of depth that is necessary but I think that if we could attempt to analyze a few scenarios in sufficient details (sufficient meaning as much as we could) we might come find more solid findings in a variety of contexts. Perhaps, other possible mechanisms that indeed complement natural selection to a greater degree could also be found.

There's no denying that extrapolation has been done towards many ideas which have been shown to be true (at least to our current knowledge). However, there are also situations where extrapolations have contibuted to minimal benefits if not worse outcomes (e.g when attempting to understand how the brain works). Due to our limited understanding of the brain and its mechanisms, we're still in the bronze age when it comes to understanding and treating pathologies such as alzheimer's, schizophrenia, depression .... Our extrpolation when it comes to such situations might give a good outcome for some patients but not others. What I find unsettling regarding applying the principles of natural selection in so many different contexts is that we don't exactly know what we don't know. Thus, it is possible despite of the evidence we find and the coherent theories we create that in some contexts (not all), taking natural selection as the only main component of evolution might make us dismiss the possibility of other equally important mechanisms existing.

 

[Sir Eus Lee]

I think what you're suggesting is that natural selection doesn't explain as many phenomena for behaviour or genetics and whatnot as we may think, that evolution is not the only factor effecting change.

And you're probably right.

I had a similar question a long time ago, why can't our body just change our reproductive methods to account for the current environment? Such as a father directly adding a gene to his sperm that allows the child to tolerate spicy food when the parent is in an environment with spicy food? Don't know if it relates but it just popped up in my mind.

We do know what in certain conditions, genes in cells will alter what they express, changing which proteins they manufacture, changing the structure. It is entirely possible they could feed those genes back to a child somehow. I don't know.

I think natural selection determines the hardware, but the software is made extremely malleable to deal with changes. For example, children have very flexible brains that can adapt quickly. I guess the real question is whether software can feed back and change hardware. Perhaps. Interestingly enough the hardware is hardwired to reprogram over time.

It naturally emerges that older generations are designed to be a "staple." As you get older, everything you do solidifies. This goes hand in hand with specialization. As you get older, everything starts becoming more "determined." For example, your brain is less influenced by changes, your short term memory begins to fade but your long term memory is still there. Jungian Cognitive functions explain a sort of specialization throughout a community. Thus, the elderly become the knowledge of the past, and the young become the way to head into the future. Then I guess we should ask, if in the short term, we begin with a malleable human being that begins to solidify, will (or did) natural selection begin with a malleable shape that will begin to (or has begun, or has already) specialize into a certain form?

Like a writing process?

If you think about building a house, you have to start with a foundation and work upwards. But imagine you could start building the entire house at once, and then press a button and put it into existence- without limitations of having to go through the process, several of the processes could be streamlined, I think. This is just conjecture.

But perhaps if evolution through natural selection is in its process, what end goal is it naturally meandering towards?...

I don't know where I'm headed with this, this is much more tangential than I usually am. But it all seems plausible. I guess in sum, our software definitely has the capacity to do a lot of finagling and re-permutation, improvisation to make up for what the hardware doesn't exactly account for.

As a side note from the video, if those neurons do indeed exist, it's a strong argument for humankind not to hurt others, actually, in fact, to help them, because your generosity turns around and helps your own mental state.

 

[Haim]

I think there is so much focus on the likely that the common view is forgetting the unlikely which I think influence evolution more then natural selection.When you have a lot more then 1,000,000,000 organisms living,just in the current time,there can be so many extremely unlikely organisms to survive that it become likely for some of them to keep on their evolution line.There are many things that transferred in the evolution line just because they didn't made the creature die.Also natural selection assume that there is something significant that can cause creature death and that current human specie is a special case,that gone beyond Natural selection,I think not,there are a lot more species were natural selection does not have significant role.
In order for natural selection to be the most important to evolution the death rate need to be bigger then 50% otherwise you have more then 50% that survive even if they are less fit,while there are situations like that like deadly virus,most of the time the death rate is lower then 50%.
Natural selection is statistical,an after view,it focus too much on the most likely things while forgetting the small things,which together form a bigger whole,looking on who didn't die while forgetting to look on who survived,just because he had not reason not to survive.
Who happened to not die survive.

 

[The Introvert]

You seem to be mistaking evolution for natural selection. This is a problem. Think of it this way: Evolution is a process that happens, natural selection is one (of many) mechanisms that drive it.

So, it's incorrect to assume something like what Sir Eus Lee is suggesting in the context of evolution:

Which is basically, the best worker for a job is going to replace a worse one

The above works for natural selection, but NOT for evolution as a whole. Take genetic drift, for example. Traits can evolve from pure chance. Sometimes, things just happen.

This paper might prove to be useful for you:
http://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/GouldLewontin.pdf

Ultimately, evolution is a very simple concept with very simple rules:
1. traits are heritable
2. some things die less or more than other things, and eventually reproduce less or more than other things

Given that biology is mistake prone, we add in an accumulation of diversity over time (exponentially so), and voila!

 

[Pressure's Spring]

Natural selection is context-specific.

So using the word "fittest" to refer to organisms that do not die out is not always appropriate.

With less sophisticated mammals living within natural environments, the traits which are selected for by the females, or through the power of the male, that are passed on, remain fairly consistent, as it is a question of necessity, due to existing within rather inflexible environments wherein their potentials [possibilities] are limited, in terms of changing the rules of the game.

Within human social environments, the traits that are selected for are allowed greater flexibility, as different pressures may be operating within their immediate confines. Consider female sexual selection, which we may assume to be motivated by increasing the probability of the survival of her offspring, and how it can be manipulated under a given set of social mores, wherein her standards are adapted to the social circumstances (for example, re-call the stereotype that women marry men for their money or status, which is not necessarily a reflection of biological health).

Also, to take into consideration, in any given society, the thought structure of the socially assimilated or successful male, which is also being selected for, Islam, for example, does not allow a Muslim female to marry a non-Muslim male, and this is to ensure memetic propagation. Another example is how the offspring of a Jewish female are expected to become Jewish (allowing genetic flexibility while maintaining memetic structures).

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Old thread, but wth...

@OP: I think what you're looking for can be found in game theory and then applied through systems theory. The evolution vs creationism dichotomy is rectified when you view the meta-system as a collection of self-organizing agents.

PS: Break anything down into a systems theory heuristic and you can apply it to anything. I just suck giant donkey nuts at doing the math required to explain what I see in empirical terms. Well, that and knowing that it forms an infinite loop doesn't make it easy either.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

The evolution vs creationism dichotomy is rectified when you view the meta-system as a collection of self-organizing agents.

What does this mean?

Have you tweaked the definition of creationism to come up with that?

It's the only way I can make sense of what you are saying, rather than God-willed, self-willed.

That is an over-estimation of our power in the matter, though, it is true, that we have a degree of power.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

What does this mean?

Have you tweaked the definition of creationism to come up with that?

It's the only way I can make sense of what you are saying, rather than God-willed, self-willed.

That is an over-estimation of our power in the matter, though, but it is true, that we have a degree of power.

Agents range throughout the consciousness gradient, so no, it's not an overestimation because it's not restricted to humanity as you seem so inclined to do.

Some famous dead guy apparently said something to the effect of "we are the universe looking at itself" or something like that. *whistles*

Anyway, God vs self is another false dichotomy. A simple proof: If God is an omniscient and unknowable being, then any atheist is actually God because who else is qualified to say with certainty that God doesn't exist? And in order to consider themselves an atheist, they have to be unaware of their godhood, so the unknowable clause remains intact. God is blissfully ignorant by default, and hence is probably an INTP.

​

 

[Pressure's Spring]

we are the universe looking at itself

Technically speaking, yes.

However, all that claim is, is self-aggrandizing.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

However, all that claim is, is self-aggrandizing.

Don't make me smite your ass....

 

[Tannhauser]

There is indeed a lot of overextrapolation. Not long ago I watched a video clip with the pseudo-intellectual Neil Degrasse Tyson who tried to reason about how the human brain evolved, and inevitably extrapolated from evolution as a series of adaptations to the environment. One of the conclusions was something like "the brain allows us to make tools, which is great for survival".

It's altogether quite fascinating to see how a small part of Darwin's theoy, i.e. natural selection by environment, i.e. "survival of the fittest" has become the most popular, whereas Darwin himself knew it didn't account for a lot of complex and important traits in humans and animals. That's why his main theory was sexual selection, not survival of the fittest. It seems that serious scientists have understood the importance of the former at this point though, and they readily agree that a lot of the theory is still quite vague.