Living and dying can account for the failure and success of mutations in any given species--so I think you're wrong.
this happens often with you. I stated, in the paragraph you replied to, that your definition/usage of evolution is limited to only the death and survival of a specific species. It is not focused or interested in the genetic mutations. With your usage of evolution, is it consistently framed and held against the standard of
did it help this species survive and adapt to the current environment? that is it -- Evolution is not only the death and survival, it is the mutation and how that mutation applies to the current environment. Obviously survival, or
fitness, is important, but it is not the only thing worth looking at.
For instance, this line directly sums up your view from everything you have said :
not how the environment dictates what evolves and how it evolves.
You have not stated how things evolve. instead, limiting this to a (what I would call) superficial level of "it's all random and that random mutations are not influenced by any environmental factors. so, there is no foundational knowledge to be gained because gene mutation is random and always has been random." By framing it this way, you inherently discourage any research into it because it is random.
You don't even respect my ability to understand basic science
Understand is not the right word, you just aren't exposed to it (for whatever reasons).
Yes. I still stand behind traditional evolution theory when it comes to the idea that the environment drives selection. Just because there are environmental feedback mechanisms intertwined with the genetic code does not change this
When EM said this, it doesn't do anything to challenge our discussion. Environment obviously is the ultimate decider in what genes keep on keepin' on, but it doesn't talk about the theory to what exact level does an environment influence the foundational level of an organism. Is there an effect, how much? etc.
As a white man my skin still tans, but I am clearly not as adapted to a tropical environment with lots of sun as someone with naturally dark skin.
For instance, in this scenario, if I as a certain level of white man-ness reproduced with an equal level of white-ness yet grew up in a climate that does not have white people(Saharan Africa, for instance), would our first generation of children have darker pigment because of our reaction to the Sun throughout our life? Would it begin to show in the 2nd generation, if they reproduced with an equal level of white-ness? That is the question here. I think there would be effect, that eventually, if all of our children did not reproduce with darker mates, there would be an adaptation of our pigment -- one that is darker to help shield the damage from UV rays. And that adaptation would be driven by the fact the sun beat our ass through X amount of years.
EM acknowledges that the science isn't here to reject the conventional theory, but that isn't because there has been exhaustive research that shows it is wrong, it's that we just don't know a god damn thing about organisms on that micro of a level. To act with uncertainty in this field seems to be intentionally ignorant and stubborn towards new ideas. While humans have made huge strides in a lot of fields, the vast amount of unknowns is still paramount. To approach any field with any certainty is so strange to me, especially on a theoretical level.
Genetic variance is always happening, it is always taking place, and different mutations either succeed or fail (i.e. survive or die out) depending on their applicability in a given environment.
You are hung up on the success or fail, which isn't at all in dispute as far as I can tell. All 3 of us and likely Dak and HBB agree why certain gene expressions carry on, but on the foundational level to why they exist is what I have been trying to have a discussion on.
I believe that chance variation can account for all these examples
Exactly my problem with your perspective this entire time. The research is obviously limited at this point in time let alone half a century ago, but you aren't acknowledging that the lack of research and analysis would minimize new theories into gene mutation. Instead, it's just "random," all the time. Which makes sense why previous theorists thought this way, their limitations were obvious, if not to them then definitely us.
See also John Beatty, "Chance Variation: Darwin on Orchids" (2006):
I think using anything by Darwin is fundamentally in another discussion here. Darwin's abilities in his time period are incredibly limited to what this discussion is about. I can't imagine he has anything to offer on this in depth of a level.(and I don't think that excerpt has much value here on the discussion at hand)
To me, of course Darwin would think it's entirely up to chance and randomness when he had no ability to look in detail at anything. I can't imagine any scientist today has as large of a scope as Darwin had back then with less abilities.
Which outcomes occur would depend on which variations had occurred, and in what order.
we see in this quote, that there is no summarization or paraphrasing of Darwin's thoughts on how gene's mutate, simply everything is random.
I wish I read this stanford one first, it basically summarizes everything we've said up to this point within the first sentence;
Whatever the cause of the generation of a variation may be
That's literally the question here: What is the cause of variation? Darwin doesn't address it (within that paragraph), Stanford concedes the contested and likely controversial nature of the question and Marlin responds to Monod to which I am skimming now.
[Monod's conception of chance: Its diversity and relevance today La conception du hasard selon Monod : sa diversité et sa pertinence aujourd’hui (is the name of the article on the UB Libraries via Merlin)]
In fact, the idea of “chance variation”, which is one of the central tenets of the theory of evolution since Darwin, have been put into question on the basis of recent empirical results about mechanisms of genetic mutation (see, e.g.,
[7]). Thus, it should be defined more precisely in order to deal with attacks against its current validity.
This is nothing but the Darwinian concept of chance variation
[4], which is reminiscent of Aristotle's idea of
tuché[5], the term “chance” referring to the fact that variation is “non intentional” or “not by design”.
3
the 2nd quote seems to be what you are entirely focused on, dispelling the notion that is there some sort of invisible hand guiding all organisms to evolve on a path towards perfection, or something. Neither of us think this exists but it continually comes up from you. (albeit not in this reply)
It is also interesting to note that the idea of “absolute coincidence” is non-committal with respect to the metaphysical issue of determinism or indeterminism, which means, in the case of genetic mutation, that it does not imply to conceive genetic mutations as the result of a deterministic or indeterministic molecular process. At some point, Monod conveys this idea by claiming that the causes of mutation can be deterministic or not (ibid.
[1], p. 129).
I also dabbled into one more paper titled,
The impact of genomic variability on gene expression in environmental Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains, and from skimming most of it seemed irrelevant but I found this portion important:
It is known that environmental yeasts frequently have a high copper resistance (Shinohara et al., 2003), which is determined by different mechanisms such as the tandem gene amplification of the CUP1 gene (Fogel and Welch,1982; van Bakel et al., 2005; Warringer et al., 2011). This phenotypic trait appeared several hundred years ago in the oenological environment, when copper storage vessels and sulphites began to be used and it became common for vines to be sprayed with copper salts (Mortimer, 2000). Three genes involved in copper resistance or homeostasis were identified in regions flanking the translocations identified in our study. Our results show that the resistance of the six strains to increasing CuSO4 levels was linked to the amplification of the CUP1 copy number in the R008, R103 and P301 strains; however, the translocation involving chromosomes 15 and 16 identified in R008 and EC1118 can also contribute to increased copper resistance (Appendix S1).
the language of the paper is mostly above my level and I have two more laying around, but reading Merlin and the critique/demonstrating of Modon, it seems like the two things have been established:
Historically, "pure chance" has been put forth from at the earliest Greek philosophers and definitely emulated by Darwin. I argue that this is become of their limitations to research on the quantum level, that Modon mentions in the article I referenced above.
Two, I go farther to think that since everything (I can think of) on Earth has a mutual exchange during interaction(tit for tat, I guess would even further simplify this idea), that since the environment has to on some level
force organisms to eat, drink and move about a certain way, that the environment would then
infiltrates organisms at the foundational level. While the environment doesn't become an "invisible hand," it would, in my estimation, narrow the broad spectrum of available genetic mutations. IE a non-flying organism would not genetically mutate flying abilities in an environment that does not encourage it, or the style of beaks from the previous discussion. Or non-oxygen breathing land creatures.
Also, we know as residents of this area of the effects of Love Canal, to which I understand that consuming poisons via water fundamentally alters the genetic level. Lead in Flint I imagine is the same kind of thing. These two things I would consider
infiltration and neither scenarios seem to create some sort of adapted-human that thrives/survives on lead/toxic waste. `
