Let's discuss evolution/SMBs raving insanity

Professor Smarmiarty · 06-03-2010, 10:04 AM

Point B is that any thing that selects for a trait that corresponds to fitness will also select for any traits attached to that trait. Therefore it is really selecting for all the traits, not just the trait that causes increased fitness.
In this way the argument is that natural selection cannot actually select for fitness, it selects for traits that come packaged together- one or two of which cause increased fitness.
Therefore if you apply such a selection over multiple generations you won't necessary end up with an increase in fitness over time because of how these trait packages are passed on hereditarily.

I should point out the contrasting view- which is the current big thing in evolution- "evo-devo"- or evolutionary development- which is trying to mix in pure genetic evolutionary selection with how organisms- particularly brains develop in emybro/first stages of life.
Ther eis a particularly remarkable study on fruitflies which shows that genetically/molecular makeup fruit-flies are basically human- but somewhere a quirk of development drove them into a different path- this quirk is speculated to be related to something that happens during embryo growth/or first few years of life in environment, it reall can't be genetically related.
This has been called the Lego theory- in that life is built of lego blocks and minor quirks one way or other send them spiralling into different directions.
HOWEVER- this is a massive problem for us chemical biologists as we can't find a reason for the lego block theory, there are other- in some ways more efficient- blocks that could have developed, but we're not sure why.
One interesting stud that I actually consulted on involved taking pretty much every chemical reaction known to man, starting with a few simple molecules, then working outwards- reacting them in any reaction that could happen and studying the results. Remarkably energy profiles tended to lead towards biotically relevant molecules though we have no idea why and its something we are thinking about.

Magic_Marker · 06-03-2010, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

WALL OF WORDS

I'm about to mangle your explaination in an attempt to see if I've got it. I understand things best through abstraction and metaphore so forgive the implications of intelligence in natural selection, and the over simplification of a complex issue, what I want to know is if I have the CORE of it down.

So, if I'm understanding right, Point B is a little like if Natural Selection worked like a Class Based RPG. It can make choices but with those choices come a packaged deal. Like, if you want to cast spells in D&D you have to be a mage and mages can't wear armor. The selected trait (spells) is packaged with the rest (having to use simple weapons, wearing robes etc.) The problem with this theory is how the packages came to be. Why is it that trait A can't be had with Traits B-F? In an RPG you say that Gygax designed it that way, but that doesn't work in Science.

An attempt to solve it is the Lego theory which is more like a point buy based RPG. Traits and stats are bought up individually. This explains why oragnisism are similiar in the embryo stage because that's like a blank slate where traits are then 'selected' like a two players putting states in STR. Sure they start out remarkably similar when the two players start applying points but at a certain point you know that these two embryos/character sheets are going to be very, very different after they are done. The problem with this theory is that certain points going into a certain build would have been much better than others and it is not understood why these 'lego peices' weren't chosen.

This has been: Mangling Science with Magic Marker.

06-03-2010, 10:04 AM	#1
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	Point B is that any thing that selects for a trait that corresponds to fitness will also select for any traits attached to that trait. Therefore it is really selecting for all the traits, not just the trait that causes increased fitness. In this way the argument is that natural selection cannot actually select for fitness, it selects for traits that come packaged together- one or two of which cause increased fitness. Therefore if you apply such a selection over multiple generations you won't necessary end up with an increase in fitness over time because of how these trait packages are passed on hereditarily. I should point out the contrasting view- which is the current big thing in evolution- "evo-devo"- or evolutionary development- which is trying to mix in pure genetic evolutionary selection with how organisms- particularly brains develop in emybro/first stages of life. Ther eis a particularly remarkable study on fruitflies which shows that genetically/molecular makeup fruit-flies are basically human- but somewhere a quirk of development drove them into a different path- this quirk is speculated to be related to something that happens during embryo growth/or first few years of life in environment, it reall can't be genetically related. This has been called the Lego theory- in that life is built of lego blocks and minor quirks one way or other send them spiralling into different directions. HOWEVER- this is a massive problem for us chemical biologists as we can't find a reason for the lego block theory, there are other- in some ways more efficient- blocks that could have developed, but we're not sure why. One interesting stud that I actually consulted on involved taking pretty much every chemical reaction known to man, starting with a few simple molecules, then working outwards- reacting them in any reaction that could happen and studying the results. Remarkably energy profiles tended to lead towards biotically relevant molecules though we have no idea why and its something we are thinking about.