…and this is a 
I admit, I was initially put off by the mere title of Nick Lane's new book, Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). I'm one of those many biologists who is adamant about the absence of direction in evolutionary history, and ascending just sounds too much like life climbing the rungs of the ladder of life, so I picked it up in a somewhat prejudicial mood.
Have no fear, though, I was won over. Right at the beginning, he admits that it is a subjective list; his criteria for including the ten chosen evolutionary innovations are that it had to revolutionize the living world, that it was important to a significant subset of life today, that it was a product of biological (not cultural) evolution, and that it had to be iconic — it had to symbolic and arrestingly interesting to human beings. That's fair enough; one could write a book on just the evolved properties of prokaryotes, but yeah, operons and chemical sensing and secretion and motility are of vast importance, but they're only going to be iconic to a rather restricted set of readers. And since my own personal interests run more to metazoan innovations, I'm not going to complain about a book that gives my hobby horses a more substantial run.
Even better, though, what enlivens the book is the biochemist's perspective: Lane isn't so much interested in the superficial matters of morphology, but in the emergence of new properties in the molecular machinery of the cell, and how it affects the world around us. Somehow, it always thrills me when we drill down right to the interactions of molecules to explain how biology works.
So here are the ten evolutionary inventions Lane describes.
Origins of life: Where and how did life arise? A review of some of the models for abiogenesis.
DNA: What conditions would allow for the synthesis of nucleotides? Where did the genetic code come from?
Photosynthesis: The photosynthetic pathway is a combination of two very different functional pathways — what does this tell us about their evolution?
Complex cells: How did cells become more complex? A chapter on horizontal transfer and endosymbiosis — borrowing and stealing and kidnaping by ancient cells.
Sex: Why do we have sexual reproduction? A question that focuses on the cytological and genetic machinery.
Movement: How do organisms get around? Cytoskeletons and motor proteins, and where they came from.
Sight: How did vision evolve? A fairly wide-ranging discussion of opsins and crystallins and Hox genes and the weird glow of black smokers.
Hot blood: Another chapter with a little taste of everything: respiration, metabolism, insulation, and how a key feature of our physiology affects everything.
Consciousness: Where did our awareness come from? You won't be surprised to learn that Lane is a materialist — the answer lies in the wiring of the brain.
Death: Why do all organisms die, and why do we even have genes that contribute to senescence and death?
So the topics aren't that biased: only three exclusive to multicellular animals, and six that are about eukaryotes almost exclusively — and even in those our prokaryotic heritage is discussed. And really, when you're talking about genes and biochemistry, you can't get away from the fact that you are dealing with genuinely universal processes.
The book is also a fun read, deep enough to give you some substance, yet clearly written with the general public in mind. If you aren't a biologist or biochemist, don't shy away — you will be able to read this book, and you will learn a lot from it. When I was reading it, I was thinking this would be a really enjoyable text to build a freshman seminar course around. The chapters are readable and each one addresses an interesting topic in biology, bringing up both current research and pending questions, and it's meaty enough to spark some good discussions.
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | June 1, 2009 3:17 PM
Nonsequitur. current evidence is that both the synthesis of nucleotides and the development of the genetic code preceded DNA by quite a ways. RNA World and whatnot.Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
June 1, 2009 3:20 PM
I was kind of expecting to see metamorphisis--like you see in caterpillars, some parasitic worms, some dinoflagellates(sp?)--in there; or even the radically different morphology of genetically identical forms (like what happens to stem cells during development). But it's a good list.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 1, 2009 3:23 PM
But abiogenesis isn't really evolution, not in its earliest stages.
And most of the rest isn't exactly cut and dried, though it's interesting to see movement and vision evolutionarily linked via the eukaryotic cilium.
Sex? Well, it is reasonably explained as an adaptation for facilitating evolution. I've never gotten a straight answer for it from the IDiots.
Death is more or less a given, since there's not much selection for living forever. And anything that boosts reproduction at the expense of long life is more likely to be selected (not so much in our case, though).
I don't know, it's all well and good to consider these matters, I just hope no one takes the considerable speculation as being evolutionary science. That said, I'm for it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Thomas | June 1, 2009 3:31 PM
But does it address whether Hell is exothermic or endothermic?
Posted by: natural cynic | June 1, 2009 3:32 PM
But, as a humanist, do you have a problem with Bronowski's The Ascent of Man?.
Although not teleological, life has indeed become complex.
Posted by: Anthony | June 1, 2009 3:33 PM
I highly recommend Lane's earlier book Oxygen: The Molecule that Made the World. It also covers a wide variety of topics from the early atmosphere to why we age. I'll have to check this new book out and see what's new in it.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 1, 2009 3:39 PM
I suspect an immune system was a more important invention than consciousness. But that'd be a 2 sixpack argument. :D
Posted by: Adam Dinan | June 1, 2009 3:48 PM
I second the recommendation for Lane's "Oxygen" book, but His second effort "Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life" was superb and really goes for the biggest questions in biology. When I picked it up, I was nigh on certain that multicellular life exists across the Universe. When I put it down, I was highly doubtful... he supports the Hydrogen Hypothesis for eukaryotic origins rather than endosymbiosis.
I'm surprised that PZ hasn't listed that above... does he just mention endosymbiosis in this one!?
Posted by: Dr.Woody
|
June 1, 2009 3:53 PM
When I was reading it, I was thinking this would be a really enjoyable text to build a freshman seminar course around.
It sounds exactly like the sort of book I'd have assigned to my intro to teaching/education classes (and which would have been stubbornly and stupidly resisted by many 'students' whose sole and only reasons to be in school were to a) have their prejudices ratified, and 2) have their tickets to the middle class stamped...
Posted by: Wayward Son | June 1, 2009 3:54 PM
I actually just came back from my local bookstore where I was looking for this book (doesn't seem to be at bookstores in Canada yet). Can't wait to read it. I found Nick Lane's other books (Oxygen, which was already mentioned, and Power, Sex, Suicide) to be excellent reads. And as someone who (in my 30s) will be starting a degree in biochemistry and molecular biology this fall - I love that he comes at this from a biochemist perspective.
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 1, 2009 4:15 PM
On my list to read and then to own.
Posted by: Newfie | June 1, 2009 4:22 PM
Going on my list as well. As somebody not overly versed in biology, I really enjoyed Neil Shubin's, "Your Inner Fish", and learned a lot.
Posted by: ChrisZ
|
June 1, 2009 4:25 PM
@ Glen Davidson #3
I don't think that any of the situations are as simple as you describe. Sex facilitates evolution? What do you even mean by that? It doesn't speed up mutation rates (to my knowledge) and it forces the organism to expend a whole bunch of energy finding and courting mates. Surely solo reproduction saves on those costs. Obviously there are benefits to sex, but which of those were directly selected upon and which of them are side products of the evolution of sex remains unclear to my knowledge. And that of course speaks nothing of what mechanisms went into the actual evolution of sex.
I get very tired of posts like yours, where you try to sound smarter than you are by taking a really complicated subject and thinking you can explain it in three words. There are books to be written on the selective benefits of sex, many of which are not at all obvious. Acting as if there actually is a simple and obvious explanation when there isn't one makes you look stupid. More than that, being satisfied by over-simplistic answers to big questions like these demonstrates that you completely lack an understanding of the beauty of science and why we pursue it.
Posted by: littlejohn | June 1, 2009 4:32 PM
Boobies. He forgot boobies.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 1, 2009 4:36 PM
ugh. Ask a Dipsosaurus some time.Posted by: Adam Dinan | June 1, 2009 4:38 PM
Well said, ChrisZ.
Also, FAO Reginald Selkirk: the factual accuracy of the RNA World hypothesis is by no means cut and dried. RNA building blocks have not been synthesized despite many efforts to do so in the lab. Alternatives like Wachterhauser's Iron-Sulfur World are alive and well and the subject of fruitful investigation.
Posted by: Brian | June 1, 2009 4:47 PM
Of course not; sex frees organisms from the necessity of mutations in order to test genetic variations.
It's pretty obvious how nature has made a virtue of that particular necessity.
Posted by: divalent | June 1, 2009 4:47 PM
Well, FWIW, I read his book on mitochrondria (Power, Sex, Suicide) and thought it was horrible. I may have learned a lot about mitochondria, but I can't be sure, because when he described things I knew about, he got it wrong. (and he said some stuff that was clearly not true) So I don't trust what he said.
And much of that books struck me as shear speculation. Interesting in a sort of "out of the box" way, but sometimes it was clearly wrong. It didn't leave me with a high opinion of his abilities.
Posted by: tim Rowledge | June 1, 2009 4:48 PM
Well maybe, maybe not. I think I seen PZ argue that it is within the remit of eve-devo for example. And I'd certainly argue that since it is a crucially important boundary condition without which there wouldn't be any biology then it needs to be studied by people interested in the whole picture.And sex? Well it's a helluva good way to mix up genetic information and find out if you come up with some better ideas.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | June 1, 2009 5:02 PM
#16: Adam Dinan:
For your reading pleasure:
Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions
Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland, & John D. Sutherland
Nature 459, 239-242 (14 May 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature08013
Posted by: ChrisZ
|
June 1, 2009 5:08 PM
Mutations are still necessary if you want anything new to come about. What you're talking about is simply the proportion of a population that shares a particular trait. That's a very small part of evolution. It does do one thing that may facilitate evolution and that is increasing the probability that beneficial mutations will be found in the same organism.
Anyway, I was never saying that there were no benefits or that the claim that sex "facilitates evolution" was wrong; I was simply saying that that phrase is meaninglessly vague. It's like saying "well arms obviously facilitate survival" and being satisfied with that as your sole explanation. You haven't explained anything, you've avoided explaining it.
This is another meaningless statement. It's not obvious to me what you're talking about. Are you just repeating your previous claim? Try not to be so vague and obtuse, it makes you look dumb, not smart.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 1, 2009 5:17 PM
My God, it might be more complicated than indicated by a comment I made in a minute or two? I'd never have guessed!
Dickhead, do you know anything at all about it? Almost all of the eukaryotic lines that have evolved parthenogenesis have gone extinct in a few million years, or are presently on the way to extinction. Asexual bdelloid rotifers being an exception, and they appear to have unusual abilities for picking up genes "laterally."
Why don't you learn anything before you vomit your appalling ignorance?
Sure, evolution is about mutation rates. What are you, a creationist, or just an idiot?
Everyone here above retarded level, yours, knows that those benefits of parthenogenesis do lead to eukaryotic lines "going solo," but they almost always eventually die out. They can't keep up with parasite evolution, it appears.
Really, tard? If you weren't so busy trying to sound smart in your idiocy, you'd have noticed that I didn't claim it was all cut and dried, I mentioned a well-known fact and contrasted it with the moronic idea of the IDiots:
I guess you're pretty stupid, but "reasonably explained" doesn't suggest that it is fully explained. Indeed, it's simply the causal force behind, at least, maintenance of sex, but is not necessarily an explanation for it arising in the first place.
I get tired of dumbfucks like you pretending that I was claiming something that I was not. I tend to run these issues against the IDiots, hence my point. I also have to fault fucktards like you who can't even think through why I might have said something, or at least, have the decency to ask rather than to project your intense stupidity onto someone else.
You know what looks stupid? You coming in here with your false accusations, inability to read at a college level, and your pig-ignorant lack of understanding the fact that sex indeed facilitates evolution.
God you're dumb.
Well, fuckwad, give any evidence that I'm "satisfied by over-simplistic answers." Like I said, I ran the issue against the IDiots, but I apparently caught out someone as stupid as the IDiots with you. Your reading comprehension is as bad as your ignorance of science.
Oh, same to the mindless chirps from Adam Dinan. Why don't you bleating morons go off and learn something, particularly how to read?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 1, 2009 5:21 PM
ChrisZ@13
Top class smack-down Chris! I guess Glen will be too busy hunting around on the floor for his teeth to be putting his head up here again any time soon.
Given that I'm an ill-educated sheep farmer, and therefore not much smarter than your average parsnip, I'll simply observe that if I believed in evolution (which I don't, because of course God (YHWH that is, not Odin) created everything in a few days of hyperactivity, and to think otherwise would earn me a divine spanking on judgment day)...IF I believed in evolution then whether or not it is facilitated by sex is secondary to the happy outcome that natural selection and random mutation have somehow helped us arrive at the place where sex has become the driving force in the development of human culture. Tell me on thing we consider a 'higher' human achievement that doesn't have a link, somewhere, to our desire to mate. I propose that the energy the human organism expends to satisfy its sex drive underpins language, music, art, architecture, technology, religion, clothing, food, literature etc. You'll no doubt argue that to the evolutionary purist these all constitute irrelevant side products. But for a scientific illiterate like me, they're more central than peripheral (or they would be if I didn't believe that all human creativity is God's divine gift).
Yous down on the farm, S. Batzrubble
PS I guess we could all eschew intercourse for onanism and see how much evolution that facilitates.
Posted by: me | June 1, 2009 5:25 PM
Brian - "It's pretty obvious how nature has made a virtue of that particular necessity."
Chris Z - "This is another meaningless statement. It's not obvious to me what you're talking about."
Chris Z is a virgin? :)
I'm just kidding. Please don't flame me.
PS, I always love a good book recommendation, thanks PZ.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 1, 2009 5:27 PM
Glen @ 22
I score you ahead on points, now Glen. But goodness me, what a potty mouth ! The Christian Brothers who raised me would have had a thing or two to say about that language. After they'd given you six of the best on your bare bum, you'd have had to lick soap off Brother Paddy's meatstick just to remind you what sort of behaviour is expected from one of the Lord's own orphans.
Posted by: Ian Monroe | June 1, 2009 5:27 PM
Just placed a hold on it at my public library where it is "under consideration".
Yes, I'm a cheap bastard. :D
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 1, 2009 5:32 PM
The mode has most likely stayed where it was.
Really? Cool.
All I know about the bdelloids is that they appear to have gotten rid of transposable elements, which probably means they don't need sex to get rid of a greatly elevated rate of (deleterious) mutations anymore, and that they're tetraploid, which helps a lot with DNA repair (they survive drying out).
Oh, and... Glen, you really did make simplified wrong claims that you didn't mean to make. You're in a place where it's not customary to tell Lies for Children™; better pump out the whole story right away, or don't comment.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 1, 2009 5:35 PM
Yes, that's what intelligent people say. Such as at: evolution.unibas.ch/teaching/evol_sex/Maintenance.pdf. Too bad you stupidly attack before thinking, eh?
No, it isn't meaninglessly vague, because that's the prevailing theory for why sexual reproduction exists. That I didn't launch into a treatise regarding it doesn't give you any right to jump to your mindless projections of your own drooling incomprehension.
I've often been attacked for writing too much, but then when I don't some egregious asshole likel you comes along and attacks because I went for a simple summary.
What was his previous claim?
See, you're such a stupid asshole that you can't even keep track of a couple of comments. He didn't write a previous claim.]
There are mainly three things wrong with you Chris. You're stupid. You're too incompetent at reading to know what anyone meant with their words. You're a dishonest malevolent asshole who attacks with your incomprehension of what someone's point is.
Apparently you're trying to look smart by making up strawmen and then attacking them. Unfortunately for you, you're even more stupid in doing it than most lying idiots are.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 1, 2009 5:36 PM
ROUND 3
Chris bounces off the ropes, tags David, who hits Glen with a flying kick to the epiglottis.
Smoggy lurks outside the ring, hoping to hit someone with a chair.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 1, 2009 5:37 PM
What about science? That's a very conspicuous omission from that list.
By which I mean... if you tell a Lie for Children™, it will inevitably get interpreted as being intended to be the full story, as you just experienced.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 1, 2009 5:41 PM
Really, I can't just throw in some comments without being faulted for not writing a thesis?
Anything that was actually wrong, or are you just attacking because it looks like the thing to do? I'm not unaware that I was hardly explaining everything, and prefaced most of my comments by saying most of the rest wasn't exactly cut and dried, then made some general comments. Christ, do I have to explain it all if I bring up any sort of explanation?
Others don't have to, and I've gotten away from long posts, for the most part.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 1, 2009 5:46 PM
some fun links to the evolution of sex:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxysZmNsyDk
really addresses the "irreducible complexity" argument, but is a great swath of examples of sex from a variety of organisms.
http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v3/n6/full/embor131.html
Since I often recommend Hamilton's first book in the "Narrow Roads of Gene Land" series, I have to recommend the second book as being an excellent collection of essays and published papers regarding the development of theories of how and why sex has evolved, and what maintains it.
http://www.indiana.edu/~curtweb/Research/Red_Queen%20hyp.html
Is a nice little essay on the Red Queen hypothesis, which still is one of the main hypotheses regarding not just the evolution of sex, but co-evolution as one of the main driving forces behind evolution itself.
Of course, there was also the PBS series on Evolution, which had some really fun stuff in it, and the website is still there (I'll post the link next).
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 1, 2009 5:47 PM
Well OK, and that's sort of what I thought you meant.
What I wanted to do was to bring up the fact that sexual reproduction is not just a "problem" for evolution, which it still is in various aspects, but that IDiots have absolutely nothing to explain it.
Likewise with death, I wished to show that evolution has answers, while ID has none.
But I think you knew that anyway. For the children, however...
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 1, 2009 5:51 PM
PBS series on evolution:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/index.html
on sexual selection especially, check out the section titled:
"Sex and the Single Guppy"
for some fun interactive stuff based on some of the most well done studies on sexual selection I recall having read up to about 1990 or so.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 1, 2009 5:57 PM
Most importantly, you can get the reference from the link.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Adam Dinan | June 1, 2009 5:58 PM
Reginald Selkirk:
Thank you very much for that link, genuinely. I had not heard about that paper.
It of course still doesn't settle the issue because it tells us nothing about Iron Sulfur world, which still appears to be equally as plausible, but it certainly is a shot in the arm to the RNA World hypothesis.
Thanks,
Adam
Posted by: ChrisZ
|
June 1, 2009 5:59 PM
Hi again Glen,
Thank you for your kind reply to my comment. I'm sorry that I misinterpreted it as pretentious and meaningless when it was merely meaningless. Your comment addresses an issue that wasn't being discussed. I'm not sure if you noticed, but PZ never mentioned IDers in his post, nor did the two commenters before you. When you jump off topic like that with a comment, apparently about how these different evolutionary adaptations make evolutionary sense and IDers don't have an answer for them (well, that's my best try at attaching meaning to it, anyway) without segue or explanation, you are going to be misinterpreted.
That said, the main point of my original comment (and later one as well) is that your comment was meaningless, and I think that still holds. What is the purpose of the conversation you seem to be having with yourself, namely that such and such trait can be evolutionarily explained therefore IDers can't use it as an argument? I honestly don't know why you posted what you did if you weren't, as you claim, trying to sound smart. Arguments like "it is reasonably explained as an adaptation for facilitating evolution" certainly aren't compelling. They won't convince an IDer (or anyone else for that matter), but I assume you weren't trying to convince anyone of anything, so I'm truly at a loss as to what you were trying to say.
Finally, I have two points of advice for you. First, even if I am in fact a "fuckwad" or a "dumbfuck" or a "fucktard," noting that in your reply actually detracts from the argument you are making. Of course, I'm sure that you don't care about that and in fact had a really cool reason for doing so anyway (like apathy for the effectiveness of your own argument, that's always a good one), but in case you didn't, I thought I'd let you know.
Secondly, since you bring up my false assumptions, let me suggest that when you are misunderstood by someone, it is not necessarily the other person's fault. Perhaps your writing was to blame? I, at least, was not the only one to misinterpret your post.
Posted by: Barry | June 1, 2009 6:02 PM
Today’s comments have given me a really great idea. As one who grew up in the 1950’s and was an avid watcher of Mr. Wizard for the beginnings of my interest in science, I was just thinking how great it would be if we could have a updated version of that done to the tune of the modern science blogs. How would that work? Well in the old version it usually started with little “Billy” running into Mr. Wizard’s house after school and exclaiming “Hello! Mr. Wizard! What are we going to do today?” Then Mr. Wizard would say something like, “Great news Billy, today we’re going to build the working model volcano you’ve asked about.” But think how much more interesting that could be if modeled after today’s science blogs: “I’ve got some really great stuff today Billy. First we’re going to read passages from the Dawkins’ book The God Delusion; then we’ll explore why Hitchens named his book The Missionary position.. Then we’ll work on your new science vocabulary with words like ‘dickhead’, ‘tard’, ‘fuckwad’, ‘fucktard’, and ‘dumbfucks’. Oh, and by the way billy, you’re not one of those stupid, retarded creationists are you?” Now would that be a great introduction to science or what?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 1, 2009 6:13 PM
That said, the main point of my original comment (and later one as well) is that your comment was meaningless, and I think that still holds.
In accusing Glen of meaninglessness, you might instead have merely asked him to clarify.
so you could have done much better yourself.
Are we done with this now?
I'm sure there are others who have run across interesting papers of late, and frankly I myself haven't perused the lit in this area for a few years now.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 1, 2009 6:15 PM
ROUND 4
Chris circles behind Glen and gets him in the "reasonable" hold. His strong forearms of rationality and logic tighten around Glen's neck, restricting blood to his brain. He falls to the floor gasping 'fuck...tard...fuck...tard'.
While he is on the canvas, Smoggy kicks him in the family jewels and scuttles out of the blog before someone attacks him in an equally cowardly and unexpected fashion.
Will Glen rise again, or will he be face slammed be Dave's dreaded 'flying buttock'? Stay tuned all you fans of "Evilutionist Smashdown!"
Posted by: ChrisZ
|
June 1, 2009 6:18 PM
I might have done, if I hadn't also wrongly thought that he was being pretentious. That was my mistake, and I apologize for it.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 1, 2009 6:22 PM
Thank you for your kind reply to my comment. I'm sorry that
By colossally stupid a-holes.
Gee, I suppose it is meaningless to bring up the most widely accepted explanation for the maintenance of sex in eukaryotes. You know, like it's meaningless to bring up evolution in schools. You're a know-nothing git.
Yes, you're dumb.
The mere fact that I explicitly brought up the IDiots left you clueless before, and it doesn't explain anything to your addled pate now:
Gee, I'm sorry I didn't put in a segue to cater to people as stupid as you are. Normal people would get it.
My god, "it is reasonably explained as an adaptation for facilitating evolution" sounds so bloody sophisticated, doesn't it? I mean, wow, it's like the fifth-best understood fact about evolution, so it must make anyone sound smart to say it. The fact that you seem not to understand it changes nothing.
And you still don't connect it with the following sentence. There were a whole three sentences in that paragraph, and you still can't get the fact that the first two were predicates of a conclusion.
No, it's the fact that clueless lying fucktards should be called what they are. It's a matter of honesty, not that you'd understand such issues.
I don't write for the most stupid among us, although I don't see anything complicated or difficult about my comments in #3.
The mere fact that you misrepresented the issue and some others pounced is why there are defamation laws, because lies have a life of their own. It's not difficult to understand, in fact, that a sheep farmer or some such would be fooled by some idiot coming in and pontificating when said idiot neither understands how to read properly, nor knows the basics of the science he pretends to discuss.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 1, 2009 6:30 PM
Posted by: ChrisZ
|
June 1, 2009 6:33 PM
My Dearest Glen,
This has grown tiresome for me, which I suspect means that it's long since I should have left this thread. I'll probably keep checking in in case you want to actually answer some of the questions I asked rather than throwing a wall of ad hominems at me, but our conversation is clearly not adding anything to a thread that should have been about what looks like a very interesting book. I apologize to the rest of the commenters for starting us down this road.
P.S. This comment is definitely additional evidence that I'm a fucktard.
Posted by: Pseudodog | June 1, 2009 6:41 PM
Yeah...this 'argument' between Glen D and ChrisZ is exactly the kind of thing that discourages me from commenting here.
ChrisZ may have 'attacked' Glen in his first post by using some biased language...the second paragraph of his post was probably unnecessary except to complain and provoke Glen.
I have to ask, though, are you trying to argue something Glen? Your first post seems to be...objecting to those things as being called evolutionary inventions? Objecting to labeling them as significant? Who are you arguing with?
Posted by: Cannabinaceae | June 1, 2009 6:45 PM
A good case can be made for calling it evolution, just not evolution by the Darwinian algorithm. For example, define DNA-style evolution of today as "a change in allele frequencies in a population." You could just as easily define non-Darwinian evolution of biotic precursors as "a change in molecular concentrations in the hydrosphere." Robert Hazen famously recently has been speaking in terms of mineral evolution as a change in the mineral content of Earth over time. He hastens to mention that its not Darwinian, of course.
Posted by: Psi Wavefunction | June 1, 2009 8:00 PM
Sight is not exclusive to multicellular organisms... >_>
(Erythropsidinium, Warnowia -- ocelli...)
/pedantry
Posted by: natural cynic | June 1, 2009 8:05 PM
David Marjanovic #27
The mode has most likely stayed where it was.
Well I'm not sure that's true, but I'm happy to be at the end of the very long tail that has developed since the pre-Cambrian. Out where complexity ---->consciousness
And for Pete's sakes, kids, the magic word is **recombination**
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 1, 2009 8:06 PM
He hastens to mention that its not Darwinian, of course.
meaning he can fathom no element of selection?
strange.
can't you?
Posted by: Marc Abian | June 1, 2009 9:14 PM
Fun thread.
That's why I'm going to do it anyway, Marc knows a bandwagon when he sees one.
Screw you Glen. I laugh at your value system. I have slept with your spouse or significant other.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
June 1, 2009 9:42 PM
OK, I put it on my list of books to read. I would never have picked up a book with that title otherwise; the title sounds like ID nonsense (ascending, *inventions* of evolution).
Posted by: MadScientist
|
June 1, 2009 9:50 PM
@Glen Davidson: I'm surprised the IDiots don't have a direct biblical explanation for sex. God saw that he could make an improvement over Adam playing with himself all the time, so he created a woman as Adam's plaything. This is also why women should just shut up, do as told, and not learn to think on their own. And of course if anything goes wrong women are to blame for refusing to be playthings or wanting to play too much. Biblical literalism is fantastic - it justifies all the most hideous acts and at the same time absolves the evildoers of any responsibility.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 1, 2009 9:53 PM
firefox
greasemonkey
killfile
yay!!!
Posted by: Mal Adapted | June 1, 2009 9:59 PM
LOL, Smoggy Batzrubble 8^)! Thanks for the comic relief. Don't let us take ourselves too seriously!
Posted by: DLC | June 2, 2009 12:22 AM
Pharyngula! now with EPA mandated fire suits !
FWIW : I understood what Davidson was saying, even if the point was too subtle for some.
Posted by: eddie
|
June 2, 2009 12:29 AM
That was fun. Maybe sometime we can discuss the 'are viruses alive' question.
Posted by: astrounit | June 2, 2009 5:23 AM
DLC #55 says, "FWIW : I understood what Davidson was saying, even if the point was too subtle for some."
Subtle? SUBTLE??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Glen Davidson's very first sentence, #3:
"But abiogenesis isn't really evolution, not in its earliest stages."
See, now right there I know he's full of shit and don't need to read another thing by him as he hijacks yet another thread. (Thank you kindly, ChrisZ)
He doesn't even know that abiogenesis "IN ITS EARLIEST STAGES" is in fact "evolution". Through and through, evolution. He even SAYS it consists of "stages".
Poor dear. If only he had been a little more careful and qualified his use of the word "evolution" with some reference to molecular replicator (e.g., "genetic") SELECTION...he might actually have gotten some respect.
-
Sounds like a good book, despite the wince I get from the title. Gonna get it.
Seems to me he might have have squeezed in at least an eleventh item that seems fairly important: the "anti-invention" of mass extinction...would have been interesting to see how that juxtaposes with the 10 listed "inventions".
Shit happens. Good or bad has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 2, 2009 7:16 AM
I'd have included maternal (or parental) care, which is a preadaptation for culture. IIRC, this was also omitted from Száthmary and Maynard Smith's The Major Transitions in Evolution, which I rate among the best book on evolution I've read. Anyone who's read both like to make a comparison?
On the issue of the directionality or otherwise of evolution, surely it's an observable fact that while the mode(s) may not have shifted (I suspect it depends how you measure it), maximal cytological, anatomical and behavioural complexity most certainly have increased. That doesn't mean there's any driving force causing this - a random walk bounded below would be enough to explain most of it. However, this random walk does appear to have lead to the evolution of new "cranes", in Dennett's terminology - such as endosymbiosis, recombination, maternal care, culture, language, and use of external representations - with consequent acceleration of change. (Oh dear, I'm starting to sound like Kurzweil - which reminds me, I missed the chance to share my amusement at this particular gem he came out with in his riposte to Newsweek: "I’m not just sitting here smiling, but have worked extensively with the Army and other organizations on developing defenses against abuse of biotechnology and other advanced technologies." Yes, and I've worked extensively with Reynard, Brer-Fox Consolidated on defences for chicken coops.)
Posted by: csrster | June 2, 2009 7:27 AM
I'd have included sleep in my list - it's always struck me as curious how ubiquitous sleep is in the biological world.
Posted by: puseaus | June 2, 2009 8:24 AM
«My father clearly stated...»
8
The stellar swarm is thread ends of a rope
where only cut off fibers are visible.
There I cut 79 more.
(Apologize for the rough translation from Norwegian. He would have liked this place.)
Posted by: Brother Sport
|
June 2, 2009 8:44 AM
I didn't think any that biologists assert that evolution has a direction.
Posted by: Brother Sport
|
June 2, 2009 8:46 AM
*that any
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 2, 2009 9:08 AM
Brother Sport,
Simon Conway Morris does. It's all set up to produce us.
Posted by: puseaus | June 2, 2009 9:17 AM
Need to correct myself. The word in the second line of the poem @60 should be "torn", not "cut".
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | June 2, 2009 10:09 AM
#36 Adam Dinan: It of course still doesn't settle the issue because it tells us nothing about Iron Sulfur world, which still appears to be equally as plausible, but it certainly is a shot in the arm to the RNA World hypothesis.
The current accumulation of evidence of the RNA World is sufficient to convince most biochemists. The structure of the ribosome, revealing that the catalytic core responsible for the peptidyl transferase functionality is made of RNA was the cherry on top.
However, even if the RNA World theory is true, there is still much to explain: what was the nature of that world? How did it arise on a fresh new planet, and how did we get from there to here? There is still plenty of room for various other OOL theories, including Iron-Sulfur, metabolism first, etc. to supplement the RNA World theory. But please stop posturing that these are alternatives to the RNA World.
Posted by: Psi Wavefunction | June 2, 2009 10:39 AM
I know this was a while up the thread, but RE sex and evolution:
- whether sex is really an adaptive feature is up for debate. The vast majority of life on earth does quite fine without it, and even some multicellular organisms can as well (eg. aforementioned bdelloid rotifers). There is a possibility that sex was initially good for transposons, and we (metazoa) eventually developed a dependency on it.
In bacteria, it is more or less clear that gene exchange is of minimal importance (although as it accumulates over a few billion years it looks important to us). (see Redfield 2001 Nature Rev Gen)
Eg. lateral gene transfer seems like an awesome idea because we see all those great beneficial genes that have been transferred from somewhere else. However, this is like thinking that playing the lottery is a great idea because we see all those millionaires living in fancy estates on the Bahamas. We simply do not see failed attempts at lateral gene transfer, which is likely the Vast majority...
- it is a logical fallacy to claim that sex is adaptive because it speeds up evolution -- it assumes foresight. Whatever traits/alleles you have today only matter in your present generation; the traits of your offspring matter in theirs. What those traits will do multiple generations from now do not matter the slightest bit to YOUR fitness. The rate of evolution of a certain lineage cannot be selected for or against -- it is other traits under selective pressure (and self-organising properties) that result in the appearance of some lineage having been 'selected for' a faster evolutionary rate.
- calling each other assholes and stupid is not particularly an accepted way of having a valid scientific debate... nor is it a functional one. Can we discuss ANYTHING without exploding in emotionally-charged drama here??? RAGE! >_>
Posted by: Pablo | June 2, 2009 11:47 AM
As a chemist, let me throw in a second for the recognition of sight as a remarkable achievement. Although, let's be specific in talking about sight as the detection of visible light. It sounds like "duh" but that is an important characteristic.
The remarkability of the eye (or any sight) is that the human body is made up, predominantly, of organic molecules. Biomolecules like proteins and peptides (and amino acids), DNA, and carbohydrates are all organic. Organic molecules have pretty characteristic spectroscopic properties. Electronic transitions, for example, generally occur in the ultraviolet range (highly conjugated systems like beta-carotene will eek into the blue, but that extent of conjugation is rare). Vibrations, on the other hand, have energies out in the IR. Rotations are in the microwave. Consequently, living beings have no problems detecting these wavelengths of light. UV and IR are readily absorbed by all of your body, and you usually can tell. You can tell when you are near an IR source (you feel the heat) and you can tell, ultimately, that you have been exposed to UV (although the sunburn might take time to be noticed).
However, most organic molecules do not have any way to absorb radiation in the visible region. Oh sure, there are a few ionic dyes that will do it, and the aforementioned highly conjugated systems, but you won't find them in the building blocks of the body. Color is much more easily absorbed by things like metals, that have lots of low-energy empty orbitals.
So how is a living organism, built from organic molecules, going to detect light in the range of 400 - 800 nm? That's where the eye comes in. The eye has developed in a way that it is made of stuff that absorbs in the visible region. Most impressively, it can even resolve small differences in wavelength, to a much better degree than the other systems can resolve UV or IR. That's because visible absorption relies on electronic transitions, which are extremely medium dependent. So in the end, nature has evolved the eye to not only be a focal point for the detection of visible light, but also the means (through use of protein media) to tune that absorption.
From a chemistry standpoint, that's really cool.
Posted by: rob
|
June 2, 2009 2:07 PM
@66 I don't agree that the evolution of sex requires foresight and therefore is not adaptive.
Look at it this way: an overly simplistic description of evolutionary "success" might be "survival". Although it works for explanation of many things, survival isn't success unless you reproduce. A less simplistic description might be "having lots of children". Less simplistic still would be "having lots of grandchildren", since having kids that die before they reproduce doesn't count for much. The thing is, you can go on with this forever, and speak of great grandchildren and great great grandchildren and so on (and for that matter, cousins....if a trait causes you to sacrifice your life prior to reproducing, while saving 50 of your first cousins, that is probably an "adaptive" trait).
Most traits can probably best be explained as promoting survival of oneself. (e.g. immunity to flu) Others are best explained as promoting reproduction and survival of offspring (e.g. lactation). A few might work at more distant relationships, for instance, aversion to cannibalism.
Sex (as opposed to parthenogenesis) probably works at the grandchildren or great grandchildren or great great great great grandchildren level. These sorts of traits would be expected to take a long time to evolve, their long term benefits often being outweighed by things with shorter term payouts. But that doesn't mean they can't evolve, if they have enough value.
Unless you consider that lactation is not an adaptive trait, I think you have to consider sexual reproduction an adaptive trait as well.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 2, 2009 4:13 PM
Nice, rob.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 2, 2009 4:22 PM
Interestingly, two of the best recent hypotheses for the evolution of endothermy (which is what is really meant by #8: 'hot blood' ugh!) implicate parental care as an ultimate cause in both mammals and birds. I find Koteja's version more persuasive than Farmer's.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 2, 2009 4:26 PM
Sven@70,
Thanks - I'll take a look at those.
Posted by: Cannabinaceae | June 2, 2009 6:05 PM
I'm not sure what you're asking with this question. Selection alone wouldn't be sufficient to make geological or pre-biotic chemical evolution darwinian. You'd still need something along the lines of heredity, differential fitness, and death.I don't think you're talking in terms of, say, Graham Cairns-Smith's notions of clay-as-life, as that (if it could be postulated coherently) would be full-blown darwinianism.
It would be easy to think of different forms of selection, though, especially where you have periodic processes like evaporating tidal puddles selecting for stuff that doesn't evaporate, or any number of other concentrating processes like precipitation selecting for insoluble stuff, or even kinds of processes that act in magma oceans like siderophiles being concentrated along with iron and so forth. Hmm... I'll bet an interesting story could be concocted suggesting that selection predates heredity.
If you're not familiar with Hazen, I'd suggest googling him up. As well as being a creative scientist he's quite the cultured individual.
Posted by: Everbleed | June 2, 2009 8:32 PM
If PZ keeps recommending these good books, and we all keep buying them like I just did...
PZ will become the new Oprah!
Go figure.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 2, 2009 8:37 PM
The vast majority of life on earth does quite fine without it, and even some multicellular organisms can as well (eg. aforementioned bdelloid rotifers).
but this still fits with the Red Queen hypothesis as to why sex evolved and is maintained.
don't forget to factor in generation times.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 2, 2009 9:08 PM
I'm not sure what you're asking with this question. Selection alone wouldn't be sufficient to make geological or pre-biotic chemical evolution darwinian.
I come from a biology background, so when someone vehemently denies a "darwinian" aspect to an evolutionary concept, I tend to think in terms of them specifically denying that selection is the primary mechanism.
You'd still need something along the lines of heredity, differential fitness, and death.
It's not that hard to create analogous situations with chemical reactions. The products of prior chemical reactions influencing the direction of future reactions, etc.
It would be easy to think of different forms of selection, though, especially where you have periodic processes like evaporating tidal puddles selecting for stuff that doesn't evaporate...
yup.
I'll bet an interesting story could be concocted suggesting that selection predates heredity.
Not sure about that, but I have seen a couple of cosmologists (can't recall the source now) stretch the idea of heredity and selection to see how well it explains the "evolution" of stars and galaxies.
EX: Supernovae produce "heritable" components that influence what forms afterward.
Graham Cairns-Smith's notions of clay-as-life, as that (if it could be postulated coherently)
See Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker", pages 149 - 155.
BTW, for those that haven't read it yet, it's available in PDF format here:
http://www.terebess.com/keletkult/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 2, 2009 9:13 PM
My thanks, too, Sven for the links.
Koteja's paper does look interesting.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 2, 2009 9:37 PM
That was fun. Maybe sometime we can discuss the 'are viruses alive' question.
No, because that one is simply a matter of definition.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 2, 2009 9:40 PM
Utter blockquote fail. The first paragraph is quoted.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 2, 2009 10:12 PM
No, because that one is simply a matter of definition.
By definition, you just discussed it.
:p
Posted by: Dwatney | June 3, 2009 7:43 AM
(I can't believe no one else said this first)
11. not drooling on oneself
12. not eating one's children
Posted by: Anthony | June 3, 2009 4:31 PM
For those interested in Hazen and mineral evolution, a recent paper by Hazen and collaborators can be found at www.geo.arizona.edu/xtal/group/pdf/AM93_1693.pdf.