Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
Sat Jan 10, 2015, 11:10 PM Jan 2015

The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

BY PHILIP BALL

Is the natural world creative? Just take a look around it. Look at the brilliant plumage of tropical birds, the diverse pattern and shape of leaves, the cunning stratagems of microbes, the dazzling profusion of climbing, crawling, flying, swimming things. Look at the “grandeur” of life, the “endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful,” as Darwin put it. Isn’t that enough to persuade you?

Ah, but isn’t all this wonder simply the product of the blind fumbling of Darwinian evolution, that mindless machine which takes random variation and sieves it by natural selection? Well, not quite. You don’t have to be a benighted creationist, nor even a believer in divine providence, to argue that Darwin’s astonishing theory doesn’t fully explain why nature is so marvelously, endlessly inventive. “Darwin’s theory surely is the most important intellectual achievement of his time, perhaps of all time,” says evolutionary biologist Andreas Wagner of the University of Zurich. “But the biggest mystery about evolution eluded his theory. And he couldn’t even get close to solving it.”

What Wagner is talking about is how evolution innovates: as he puts it, “how the living world creates.” Natural selection supplies an incredibly powerful way of pruning variation into effective solutions to the challenges of the environment. But it can’t explain where all that variation came from. As the biologist Hugo de Vries wrote in 1905, “natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.” Over the past several years, Wagner and a handful of others have been starting to understand the origins of evolutionary innovation. Thanks to their findings so far, we can now see not only how Darwinian evolution works but why it works: what makes it possible.

A popular misconception is that all it takes for evolution to do something new is a random mutation of a gene—a mistake made as the gene is copied from one generation to the next, say. Most such mutations make things worse—the trait encoded by the gene is less effective for survival—and some are simply fatal. But once in a blue moon (the argument goes) a mutation will enhance the trait, and the greater survival prospects of the lucky recipient will spread that beneficial mutation through the population.

more

http://nautil.us/issue/20/creativity/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
1. Some folks trust to reason, others trust to might. I don't trust to nothin'
Sat Jan 10, 2015, 11:31 PM
Jan 2015

but I know it come out right.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
2. Life emerging and evolving as a mathematical inevitability in a complex structure is fascinating.
Sat Jan 10, 2015, 11:36 PM
Jan 2015

Evolution as a physical law makes sense to me, how else to explain infinite random variations somehow resulting in intricate and much more finite living things?

I understand that the vast reach of time can explain a lot, but there are just too many mutational combination potentials to fully explain evolution as Darwin explained it.

The Protozoa complexity and variation was also eye opening.


Kind of puts the final nail in the coffin of intelligent design, which rightfully questioned how evolution explained the vast variety and intricacy of life if was just blind mutation at work, even if you factor in the oceans of time.

Thank you for this, I will share with others.

Jim__

(14,072 posts)
4. "There are 20 different amino acids ... for proteins just 100 amino acids long ... "
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 12:36 PM
Jan 2015

"There are 20 different amino acids ... for proteins just 100 amino acids long ... the number of permutations is 10130"

It actually appears that way in the article:

The same explosion of combinatorial options happens for proteins, which are molecules made up of many tens to hundreds of amino acids bound together in chains and folded up into particular molecular shapes. There are 20 different amino acids found in natural proteins, and for proteins just 100 amino acids long (which are small ones) the number of permutations is 10130. Yet the 4 billion years of evolution so far have provided only enough time to create around 1050 different proteins. So how on earth has it managed to find ones that work?


The number of permutations is 10130 (20100 is just about 10130). Is the number of different proteins that have been created actually 1050?

bananas

(27,509 posts)
6. Manfred Eigen is on the Board of Sponsors of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Tue Jan 13, 2015, 06:00 AM
Jan 2015

The last paragraph in the article:

These ideas suggest that evolvability and openness to innovation are features not just of life but of information itself. That is a view long championed by Schuster’s sometime collaborator, Nobel laureate chemist Manfred Eigen, who insists that Darwinian evolution is not merely the organizing principle of biology but a “law of physics,” an inevitable result of how information is organized in complex systems. And if that’s right, it would seem that the appearance of life was not a fantastic fluke but almost a mathematical inevitability.


From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Eigen

Eigen is a member of the Board of Sponsors of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.


The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is known for the Doomsday Clock:
http://thebulletin.org/overview

Overview

The Doomsday Clock is an internationally recognized design that conveys how close we are to destroying our civilization with dangerous technologies of our own making. First and foremost among these are nuclear weapons, but the dangers include climate-changing technologies, emerging biotechnologies, and cybertechnology that could inflict irrevocable harm, whether by intention, miscalculation, or by accident, to our way of life and to the planet.

<snip>


bananas

(27,509 posts)
7. Eigen's paradox and Fermi's paradox
Tue Jan 13, 2015, 06:09 AM
Jan 2015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_threshold_%28evolution%29

<snip>

Eigen's paradox is one of the most intractable puzzles in the study of the origins of life. It is thought that the error threshold concept described above limits the size of self replicating molecules to perhaps a few hundred digits, yet almost all life on earth requires much longer molecules to encode their genetic information. This problem is handled in living cells by enzymes that repair mutations, allowing the encoding molecules to reach sizes on the order of millions of base pairs. These large molecules must, of course, encode the very enzymes that repair them, and herein lies Eigen's paradox, first put forth by Manfred Eigen in his 1971 paper (Eigen 1971). Simply stated, Eigen's paradox amounts to the following:

Without error correction enzymes, the maximum size of a replicating molecule is about 100 base pairs.
For a replicating molecule to encode error correction enzymes, it must be substantially larger than 100 bases.

This is a chicken-or-egg kind of a paradox, with an even more difficult solution. Which came first, the large genome or the error correction enzymes?

<snip>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

The Fermi paradox (or Fermi's paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity's lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations.[1] The basic points of the argument, made by physicists Enrico Fermi and Michael H. Hart, are:

- The Sun is a typical star, and relatively young. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older.

- With high probability, some of these stars will have Earth-like planets.[2] Assuming the Earth is typical, some of these planets may develop intelligent life.

- Some of these civilizations may develop interstellar travel, a technology Earth is investigating even now (such as the 100 Year Starship).

- Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in a few tens of millions of years.


According to this line of thinking, the Earth should already have been colonized, or at least visited. But Fermi saw no convincing evidence of this, nor of signs of intelligence (see Empirical resolution attempts) elsewhere in our galaxy or (to the extent it would be detectable) elsewhere in the observable universe. Hence Fermi's question, "Where is everybody?"[3]

<snip>

Jim__

(14,072 posts)
8. Fermi's paradox and "A Comet's Tale".
Tue Jan 13, 2015, 10:52 AM
Jan 2015

I happened to read this somewhat old (around 2003) essay the other day, A Comet's Tale. And reading it made me think about Fermi's paradox. The essay is a bit long and takes some time getting into the nature of the solar system. But, if the sun is a typical star, and if our solar system is typical, a civilization probably has less than 1 million years to get into space before a catastrophic end. The essay talks about the orbits of asteroids and our attempt to track them and predict any possible collisions. Toward the end of the essay he talks about comets. They are sort of wild cards and one could crash into the earth with just about a three month warning. Asteroids and comets are by-products of the formation of the solar system.

An excerpt:

...

How did we get here? In 1178. a monk in everything else, for all time. Canterbury, England, recorded the testimony of two men who witnessed a "flaming torch" spring up off the face of the moon, which "writhed, as it were, in anxiety," then "took on a blackish appearance." What these men saw, some scientists believe (the issue is debated), was the formation by an asteroid collision of the moon's youngest known crater, Giordano Bruno, named in honor of a defrocked Italian philosopher-priest. The explosion had the estimated force of 120,000 megatons, equal to 120 billion tons of TNT. Hiroshima was a mere 15 kilotons. The greatest man-made explosion in history, a Soviet nuclear test on the Arctic island Novaya Zemlya in 1962, was 60 megatons. If every nuclear device on the planet were somehow to explode at the same moment, no more than 20,000 megatons would be unleashed. The formation of Giordano Bruno, if that is indeed what the two witnesses saw, marked perhaps the first time in recorded history that human beings observed what is now known as a large-body impact. The next would occur more than 800 years later, when two dozen fragments of a shattered comet would explode on the surface of Jupiter. Not even the intervening centuries of scientific advancement would allow us any true comprehension of the destructive potential of large-body impacts. Faced with the effects of 20 megatons of explosive energy for every man, woman, and child on Earth, the mind is quickly beaten into something misshapen and medieval.

...

In its journey around the sun Earth passes through the orbits of twenty million asteroids. Many of these Earth-crossers are called near-Earth asteroids. NEAs much smaller than 100 meters wide are basically undetectable but for a fluke of stargazing luck; unfortunately, an object of only, say, 90 meters possesses the collisional capability of roughly 30 megatons of explosive energy, a figure that is dreadful but globally manageable. NEAs larger than 100 meters are thought to number 100,000, a fraction of which have been located; in the event of an impact these could effect serious global climate change. Around 20,000 NEAs are large enough, individually, to annul a country the size of the Czech Republic. The number of NEAs bigger than one kilometer in diameter is currently thought to be around 1,000. At astronomers' current rate of detection-roughly one a day-a survey of the entire population of one-kilometer NEAs will be complete within the next decade.

This one-kilometer threshold is important, for asteroids above it are known as "civilization- enders." They would do so first by the kinetic energy of their impact, striking with a velocity hitherto unknown in human history. The typical civilization-ender would be traveling roughly 20 kilometers a second, or 45,000 miles per hour - for visualization's sake, this is more than fifty times faster than your average bullet - producing an impact fireball several miles wide that, very briefly, would be as hot as the surface of the sun. If the asteroid hit land, a haze of dust and asteroidal sulfates would enshroud the entire stratosphere. This, combined with the soot from the worldwide forest fire the impact's thermal radiation would more or less instantaneously trigger, would plunge Earth into a cosmic winter lasting anywhere from three months to six years. Global agriculture would be terminated, and horrific greenhousing of the climate and mass starvation would quickly ensue, to say nothing of the likely event of world war - over the best caves, say. In the event of a 10-kilometer impact, every- thing within the ocean's photic zone, including food-chain-vital phytoplankton, would die, but this would hardly matter, as the deadly atmospheric production of nitrogen oxides, which would fall as acid rain, would for the next decade poison every viable body of water on Earth. Chances are, however, that the impact would be a water strike, as 72 percent of meteorite landings are thought to have been. This scenario is little better. A one-kilometer impact would, in seconds, evaporate as many as 700 cubic kilometers of water, shooting a tower of steam several miles high and thousands of degrees hot into the atmosphere, once again blotting out incoming solar radiation and triggering cosmic winter. The meteorite itself would most likely plunge straight to the ocean floor, opening up a crater five kilometers deep, its blast wave cracking open Earth's crust to uncertain seismic effect. The resultant tsunami, radiating outward in every direction from the point of impact, would begin as a wall of water as high as the ocean is deep. If a coastal dweller were to look up and see this wave coming he or she would be killed seconds later, as it would be traveling as fast as a 747. Of course, these are all projections based in physics, and can be scaled either slightly up or slightly down in their potential for global destruction. As the paleontologist David M. Raup puts it, "The bottom line is that collision with a. . . one-kilometer body would be most unpleasant."

Although one-kilometer impacts (at least several thousand megatons) are thought to occur once every 800,000 years, with 200-meter objects (1,000 megatons) striking once every 100,000 years and 40-meter objects (10 megatons) striking once every 1,000 years, only a handful of professional and amateur astronomers are currently watching the skies. Nearly half of the asteroids believed capable of destroying one quarter of humanity remain uninventoried. Not until 1998 did the U.S. Congress direct NASA to identify, by 2008, 90 percent of all asteroids and comets greater than one kilometer in diameter with orbits approaching Earth. Unfortunately, the government agency - of any government, anywhere - that would react to and be expected to deal with the likelihood of an asteroid impact does not currently exist. The impact threat is what Ostro calls "low probability and high consequence," and bureaucracies scatter like roaches from the kitchen-bright possibility of severe consequences. We need only to consider the disgraceful games of administrative duck-duck-goose played in the aftermath of comparatively smaller disasters, such as the terrorist attacks of September 2001, to recognize the federal unwillingness to counter its own congenital laxity.

....


Just a thought.
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»The Strange Inevitability...