DOCSLIB.ORG

Evolution—The Extended Synthesis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evolution—The Extended Synthesis EVOLUTION—THE EXTENDED SYNTHESIS edited by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England © 2010 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. MIT Press books may be purchased at special quantity discounts for business or sales promotional use. For information, please email [email protected] or write to Special Sales Department, The MIT Press, 55 Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA 02142. This book was set in Times Roman by Toppan Best-set Premedia Limited. Printed and bound in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Evolution—the extended synthesis / edited by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-262-51367-8 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Evolution (Biology) 2. Evolutionary genetics. 3. Developmental biology. I. Pigliucci, Massimo, 1964– II. Müller, Gerd B. QH366.2.E8627 2010 576.8—dc22 2009024587 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Index Abir-Am, Pnina, 445 Average effects, 87 Abstract gene model, 102 Avital, E., 165 Accommodation, 298, 324, 366. See also Phenotypic and genetic Badyaev, A. V., 365 accommodation Baldwin effect, 219, 257–258, 366, 367, Activator-inhibitor systems, 290 371 Adams, Paul, 220 Baldwin, James Marc, 219, 366, 367, 371 Adaptation, 163–164, 425–427 Bat wings, 268 Adaptation and Natural Selection Beaks, fi nch, 271 (Williams), 84, 88 Behavioral inheritance, 187 Adaptive cell behaviors, 268 Benkemoun, L., 153–154 Adaptive landscapes/adaptive Biodiversity, areas for future research on topographies. See Fitness landscapes origins of, 65–71 Adaptive radiation Bioeconomics, 469–470 defi ned, 65 Biogenetic law, Haeckel’s, 257 theory of, 65–68 “Biological” species concept, 8 Adaptive solutions, multiple, 33–34 Biologists, entrenched separation between Adhesion (ADH), 286f, 287 evolutionary and developmental, 394 Agents, 220 Biology Allee, W. C., 83 evolutionary, 8 Alligator mississippiensis, 320f integrative, 365 Allopatric speciation, 8 Biotechnology, 381 Allostery, 265 “Bipedal goat effect,” 362, 369 “Altenberg 16,” vii–viii Bipedal macque, 369, 370f Altruism, 85–87 “Blending of inheritance,” 5 Anatomical variation, nature of, Blount, Z. D., 38 271 Bone-forming cells, 268 Animal diversity, burst of Bone morphogenetic protein 4 (BMP4), during Cambrian radiation, 336 271 Anthropology, evolutionary, 91 Boogerd, F. C., 471 Anti-reductionist consensus, 461–464 Botany. See also Plants Antlers, 273–274 Modern Synthesis and, 8 Apical-basal (A/B) polarity (POL), Brain, 69 induction of, 288–289 how fi tness is defi ned in the, 237–238 Arabidopsis thaliana, 122–123, 126–129, size and complexity, 69 356f, 362, 363f Brighton, Henry, 240 Arch-back nursing (ABN), 161–162 Brooks, D. R., 446 Area effect, 67 Buffering, 357–361 Arthur, Wallace, 423, 424f Ashby, W. R., 192 Calvin, W. H., 221 Aunger, Robert, 220 Cambrian explosion, 336, 337f, 338–339 Autocatalysis, 210–212, 212f Canalization, 140–141, 357–360 486 Index Capacitance, 360–361 Connected components, defi ned, 55 Carroll, Sean B., 407 Conserved genes and core processes for Cartwright, Nancy, 466 evolution, 256, 259–261 Causal-mechanistic approach, shift Consilience, 474n2 toward, 12–14 Consilience (Wilson), 446 CBF-1-Su(H)-Lag-1 (CSL), 287 Constraining principles, 427 Cecciarelli, L., 447, 448 Constraint, 394–395 Cell differentiation, 281 defi ned, 394 Cell heredity, 141 Control webs, 197, 202 Cell learning through epigenetic Cooperative behavior, 85, 86, 201 inheritance, 156–157, 156f Correlation vs. causation, emphasis on, Cell memory, 141 12 Cellular epigenetic inheritance, 144–152 Culture, evolutionary perspective on, Cellular epigenetic learning, 156–157, 91–92 156f Cytosines, methylation and demethylation Cellular epigenetic variants of, 142–143, 147. See also Methylation prevalence, stability, and induction of, marks 152–153 Cellular epigenetic variation, transmission Darden, Lindley, 444, 445 of developmentally induced, 144–152 Darwin, Charles. See also specifi c topics Cellular epigenetics, expanding the scope on direction-giving and creative role of of studies of, 156–157 natural selection, 22 Cerebral capacity, 69–70 Fleeming Jenkin and, 29 Cervical vertebrae, 268 hallmark of his theory of evolution, 298 Chance variation(s), 21, 33–39. See also as integrator of information, 97 Divergence, evolutionary; Variation invention and subordination of chance Darwin’s invention and subordination of, variation, 22–29 22–29 mechanism of evolution, 295, 297, 298 importance, 39–42 on relationship between theory and vs. natural selection, 21, 41–42 “data,” 373 natural selection of, 21 Darwinism subordination throughout evolutionary essence, 21–22, 33 synthesis, 30–33 ideas underlying the original, 5 Changeux, J.-P., 217 key concepts, 11f Charlesworth, Brian, 269, 270 period of “eclipse,” 5 “Cheating,” 201 vs. selectionism, 219 Chemical origin of evolvability and Dawkins, Richard, 32–33 systems chemistry in statu nascendi, Deer antlers, 273–274 210–214 Demethylation of cytosines, 142 Chetverikov, Sergei, 31 Development Chromatin marking, epigenetic epigenetic inheritance and evolution of, inheritance through, 147–150 166 Ciliates, 147 evolution and, 394–395 Citrate metabolism, 37 Developmental biology, 8, 299. See also Cnidaria, 283 Evolutionary developmental biology Codon-based gene model, 104 Developmental-genetic tool kit, 283, 284 Cognition, neuronal replicators in, Developmental genetics, 269, 270 214–216 Developmental networks, 139 Cognitive explosion phase, 70–71 Developmental regulatory networks, 324. Coin problem. See 10-coin problem See also Gene regulatory networks Common descent of all living organisms, Differential adhesion (DAD), 286f, 287 5 Differentiated states, inheritance of, 142 Commoner, Barry, 457 Differentiation, systems that control, Communicative niche construction, 186 142 Communities as targets of selection, 138, Digit reductions and additions, 319–320, 139 320f, 321f, 322 Compartmentation, 267–269, 272, 273 Diploblasts, 283–284 Competition between groups, 82, 83 Dirac, Paul, 459–460 Index 487 Directed variation, 22, 42 Epigenetic approaches to evolutionary vs. chance variation, 22 (see also Chance change, 140–141 variation(s)) Epigenetic control systems, 141–143 Disease transmission, 161 Epigenetic inheritance, 141–144, 187. See Divergence, evolutionary, 138. See also also Cellular epigenetic inheritance; Chance variation(s) Soma-to-soma transmission Diversity. See Biodiversity defi ned, 187 DNA, 9, 138–139, 457. See also Chromatin evolutionary implications, 163–168 marking Epigenetic inheritance systems (EISs), DNA modifi cation, 142 145, 152, 153 DNA sequences, 99 types of, 145–152 Dobzhansky, Thoedosius, 6–7, 31, 41, 42, Epigenetic innovation, 307, 308. See also 91, 278, 412–413, 474n3 Variation-innovation distinction Downward causation, 460–461 environmental factors and, 315 Dresden, M., 461 Epigenetic innovation theory, 322–327 Drosophila sp., 31, 141, 142 key components, 322–323 D. Pseudoobscura, 32 Epigenetic integration, 315 Dupré, John, 466 Epigenetic learning, 156–157, 156f Dynamical interactions in development, Epigenetic research, areas of, 140–141 316, 317f Epigenetic traps, 324 Dynamical patterning modules (DPMs), Epigenetic turn, 140–145 285, 297–300 Epigenetic variation(s). See also Cellular metazoan forms generated by, 293, 294f epigenetic variants molecules, physics, and outcomes of the direct and indirect induction of, 155, major, 285–293 155f names, components, and roles in inheritance of acquired, 143 evolution and development of modes of transmission, 144, 145f metazoan, 285–286, 286t transmission of developmentally induced cellular, 144–152 Ecological inheritance, 176, 180–181, Epigenetics, 144. See also Cellular 186–187 epigenetics vs. genetic inheritance, 181 development, genetics, and, 362–365 informational, 197–201 Epigenome, evolutionary potential of, physical, 193–197 127–129 types of, 187, 189 Epistasis, genome networks and, 124–127 Ecological niches, 158. See also Niche Epithelial-mesenchymal transformation, construction 293 dynamics of invasion of empty, 67–68 Epitheliod tissue, 292 Ecology, 469 Error correction (EC) mechanisms, 224f evolutionary, 8 Escherichia coli (E. coli), 34–37, 36f, 37 Modern Synthesis and, 8 Eukaryotes, 9, 260 Ecosystem engineering, 178, 194–196, 202 Eukaryotic cell, 88, 167 Edelman, G. M., 217, 218 Eumetazoa, 283–284 Eigen’s replicating equation, 221 EvoDevo. See Evolutionary Elk antlers, 273–274 developmental biology Embryo, spatial compartments in, 267–268 Evolution. See also specifi c topics Embryology, 8 Darwin’s mechanism of, 295, 297, 298 Embryonic induction, 266 defi nitions, 454 Emergentism, 461 theory of Engineering webs, 197, 202 hallmark of Darwin’s, 298 Environment and developing phenotype, principles underlying, 276 362 units of, 209, 220 Environmental factors and innovation, Evolution (Barton), 419, 421 315 Evolution (Huxley), 449 Environmental induction, 315–316 Evolution (Ridley), 419, 420–421t Environmentally mediated genotypic Evolution textbooks, 423, 425. See also associations (EMGAs), 197, 202 under Evolutionary theory, broad Epiallele formation, 129 representations of 488 Index Evolutionary and physiological variation, extended synthesis, unifi cation, and 275 coherence, 433–434 (see also Extended Evolutionary Biology/Evolution
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Toward an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis 10-13 July 2008
    18th Altenberg Workshop in Theoretical Biology 2008 Toward an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis 10-13 July 2008 organized by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research Altenberg, Austria The topic More than 60 years have passed since the conceptual integration of several strands of evolutionary theory into what has come to be called the Modern Synthesis. Despite major advances since, in all methodological and disciplinary domains of biology, the Modern Synthesis framework has remained surprisingly static and is still regarded as the standard theoretical paradigm of evolutionary biology. But for some time now there have been calls for an expansion of the Synthesis framework through the integration of more recent achievements in evolutionary theory. The challenge for the present workshop is clear: How do we make sense, conceptually, of the astounding advances in biology since the 1940s, when the Modern Synthesis was taking shape? Not only have we witnessed the molecular revolution, from the discovery of the structure of DNA to the genomic era, we are also grappling with the increasing feeling – as reflected, for example, by the proliferation of “-omics” (proteomics, metabolomics, “interactomics,” and even “phenomics”) – that we just don't have the theoretical and analytical tools necessary to make sense of the bewildering diversity and complexity of living organisms. By contrast, in organismal biology, a number of new approaches have opened up new theoretical horizons, with new possibilities
    [Show full text]
  • On the Interaction of Function, Constraint and Complexity in Evolutionary Systems
    UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON FACULTY OF PHYSICAL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING ELECTRONICS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE Volume 1 of 1 On The Interaction Of Function, Constraint And Complexity In Evolutionary Systems by Adam Paul Davies Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy April 2014 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON ABSTRACT FACULTY OF PHYSICAL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING Electronics and Computer Science Doctor of Philosophy ON THE INTERACTION OF FUNCTION, CONSTRAINT AND COMPLEXITY IN EVOLUTIONARY SYSTEMS by Adam Paul Davies Biological evolution contains a general trend of increasing complexity of the most complex organisms. But artificial evolution experiments based on the mechanisms described in the current theory generally fail to reproduce this trend; instead, they commonly show systematic trends of complexity minimisation. In this dissertation we seek evolutionary mechanisms that can explain these apparently conflicting observations. To achieve this we use a reverse engineering approach by building computational simulations of evolution. One highlighted problem is that even if complexity is beneficial, evolutionary simulations struggle with apparent roadblocks that prevent them from scaling to complexity. Another is that even without roadblocks, it is not clear what drives evolution to become more complex at all. With respect to the former, a key roadblock is how to evolve ‘irreducibly complex’ or ‘non- decomposable’ functions. Evidence from biological evolution suggests a common way to achieve this is by combining existing functions – termed ‘tinkering’ or ‘building block evolution’. But in simulation this approach generally fails to scale across multiple levels of organisation in a recursive manner. We provide a model that identifies the problem hindering recursive evolution as increasing ‘burden’ in the form of ‘internal selection’ as joined functions become more complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Emanuele Serrelli Nathalie Gontier Editors Explanation, Interpretation
    Interdisciplinary Evolution Research 2 Emanuele Serrelli Nathalie Gontier Editors Macroevolution Explanation, Interpretation and Evidence Interdisciplinary Evolution Research Volume 2 Series editors Nathalie Gontier, Lisbon, Portugal Olga Pombo, Lisbon, Portugal [email protected] About the Series The time when only biologists studied evolution has long since passed. Accepting evolution requires us to come to terms with the fact that everything that exists must be the outcome of evolutionary processes. Today, a wide variety of academic disciplines are therefore confronted with evolutionary problems, ranging from physics and medicine, to linguistics, anthropology and sociology. Solving evolutionary problems also necessitates an inter- and transdisciplinary approach, which is why the Modern Synthesis is currently extended to include drift theory, symbiogenesis, lateral gene transfer, hybridization, epigenetics and punctuated equilibria theory. The series Interdisciplinary Evolution Research aims to provide a scholarly platform for the growing demand to examine specific evolutionary problems from the perspectives of multiple disciplines. It does not adhere to one specific academic field, one specific school of thought, or one specific evolutionary theory. Rather, books in the series thematically analyze how a variety of evolutionary fields and evolutionary theories provide insights into specific, well-defined evolutionary problems of life and the socio-cultural domain. Editors-in-chief of the series are Nathalie Gontier and Olga Pombo. The
    [Show full text]
  • Culture and the Baldwin Effect
    Culture and the Baldwin Effect Diego Federici1 Norwegian University of Science and Technology Department of computer and information science N-7491 Trondheim, Norway [email protected], http://www.idi.ntnu.no/~federici Abstract. It is believed that the second phase of the Baldwin effect is basically governed by the cost of learning. In this paper we argue that when learning takes place the fitness landscape undergoes a modification that might block the Baldwin effect even if the cost of learning is high. The argument is that learning strategies will bias the evolutionary pro- cess towards individuals that genetically acquire better compared to in- dividuals that genetically behave better. Once this process starts the probability of experiencing the Baldwin effect decreases dramatically, whatever the learning cost. A simulation with evolving learning indi- viduals capable of communication is set to show this effect. The set of acquired behaviors (culture) competes with the instinctive one (genes) giving rise to a co-evolutionary effect. 1 Introduction 1.1 The Baldwin effect In the context of the debate between Darwinism and Lamarckism, James Mark Baldwin (1896) proposed that phenotypic plasticity might be regarded as \a new factor in evolution" [1]. Phenotypic plasticity allowing adaptation, would smooth the fitness landscape increasing the efficiency of the evolutionary process [2, 3]. However, phenotypic plasticity has inherent costs associated with the training phase in terms of energy, time and eventual mistakes. For these reasons, in a second phase, evolution may find a way to achieve the same successful behaviors without plasticity. Thus the Baldwin effect has two phases.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting to Evo-Devo: Concepts and Challenges for Students Learning Evolutionary Developmental Biology Anna Hiatt
    Bryn Mawr College Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College Biology Faculty Research and Scholarship Biology 2013 Getting to Evo-Devo: Concepts and Challenges for Students Learning Evolutionary Developmental Biology Anna Hiatt Gregory K. Davis Bryn Mawr College, [email protected] Caleb Trujillo Mark Terry Donald P. French See next page for additional authors Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.brynmawr.edu/bio_pubs Part of the Biology Commons Custom Citation Hiatt A, Davis GK, Trujillo C, Terry M, French DP, Price RM and Perez KE . "Getting to evo-devo: concepts and challenges for students learning evolutionary developmental biology". CBE-Life Sciences Education 12 (2013): 494-508. This paper is posted at Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College. http://repository.brynmawr.edu/bio_pubs/10 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Anna Hiatt, Gregory K. Davis, Caleb Trujillo, Mark Terry, Donald P. French, Rebecca M. Price, and Kathryn E. Perez This article is available at Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College: http://repository.brynmawr.edu/ bio_pubs/10 CBE—Life Sciences Education Vol. 12, 494–508, Fall 2013 Article Getting to Evo-Devo: Concepts and Challenges for Students Learning Evolutionary Developmental Biology Anna Hiatt,*† Gregory K. Davis,‡ Caleb Trujillo,§ Mark Terry, Donald P. French,* Rebecca M. Price,¶ and Kathryn E. Perez** *Department of Zoology, Oklahoma
    [Show full text]
  • Myths and Legends of the Baldwin Effect
    Myths and Legends of the Baldwin Effect Peter Turney Institute for Information Technology National Research Council Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6 [email protected] Abstract ary computation when there is an evolving population of learning individuals (Ackley and Littman, 1991; Belew, This position paper argues that the Baldwin effect 1989; Belew et al., 1991; French and Messinger, 1994; is widely misunderstood by the evolutionary Hart, 1994; Hart and Belew, 1996; Hightower et al., 1996; computation community. The misunderstandings Whitley and Gruau, 1993; Whitley et al., 1994). This syn- appear to fall into two general categories. Firstly, ergetic effect is usually called the Baldwin effect. This has it is commonly believed that the Baldwin effect is produced the misleading impression that there is nothing concerned with the synergy that results when more to the Baldwin effect than synergy. A myth or legend there is an evolving population of learning indi- has arisen that the Baldwin effect is simply a special viduals. This is only half of the story. The full instance of synergy. One of the goals of this paper is to story is more complicated and more interesting. dispel this myth. The Baldwin effect is concerned with the costs Roughly speaking (we will be more precise later), the and benefits of lifetime learning by individuals in Baldwin effect has two aspects. First, lifetime learning in an evolving population. Several researchers have individuals can, in some situations, accelerate evolution. focussed exclusively on the benefits, but there is Second, learning is expensive. Therefore, in relatively sta- much to be gained from attention to the costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Facilitated Variation: How Evolution Learns from Past Environments to Generalize to New Environments
    Facilitated Variation: How Evolution Learns from Past Environments To Generalize to New Environments Merav Parter., Nadav Kashtan., Uri Alon* Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel Abstract One of the striking features of evolution is the appearance of novel structures in organisms. Recently, Kirschner and Gerhart have integrated discoveries in evolution, genetics, and developmental biology to form a theory of facilitated variation (FV). The key observation is that organisms are designed such that random genetic changes are channeled in phenotypic directions that are potentially useful. An open question is how FV spontaneously emerges during evolution. Here, we address this by means of computer simulations of two well-studied model systems, logic circuits and RNA secondary structure. We find that evolution of FV is enhanced in environments that change from time to time in a systematic way: the varying environments are made of the same set of subgoals but in different combinations. We find that organisms that evolve under such varying goals not only remember their history but also generalize to future environments, exhibiting high adaptability to novel goals. Rapid adaptation is seen to goals composed of the same subgoals in novel combinations, and to goals where one of the subgoals was never seen in the history of the organism. The mechanisms for such enhanced generation of novelty (generalization) are analyzed, as is the way that organisms store information in their genomes about their past environments. Elements of facilitated variation theory, such as weak regulatory linkage, modularity, and reduced pleiotropy of mutations, evolve spontaneously under these conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Developmental Niche Construction Is Not Selective Niche Construction: and Why Rsfs.Royalsocietypublishing.Org It Matters Karola Stotz
    Downloaded from http://rsfs.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on September 1, 2017 Why developmental niche construction is not selective niche construction: and why rsfs.royalsocietypublishing.org it matters Karola Stotz Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University, New South Wales 2109, Australia Research KS, 0000-0001-5300-0934 Cite this article: Stotz K. 2017 Why In the last decade, niche construction has been heralded as the neglected developmental niche construction is not process in evolution. But niche construction is just one way in which the organ- ism’s interaction with and construction of the environment can have potential selective niche construction: and why it evolutionary significance. The constructed environment does not just select for, matters. Interface Focus 7: 20160157. it also produces new variation. Nearly 3 decades ago, and in parallel with http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2016.0157 Odling-Smee’s article ‘Niche-constructing phenotypes’, West and King introduced the ‘ontogenetic niche’ to give the phenomena of exogenetic inheri- One contribution of 20 to a theme issue ‘New tance a formal name. Since then, a range of fields in the life sciences and medicine has amassed evidence that parents influence their offspring trends in evolutionary biology: biological, by means other than DNA (parental effects), and proposed mechanisms philosophical and social science perspectives’. for how heritable variation can be environmentally induced and developmen- tally regulated. The concept of ‘developmental niche construction’ (DNC) Subject Areas: elucidates how a diverse range of mechanisms contributes to the transgenera- systems biology tional transfer of developmental resources. My most central of claims is that whereas the selective niche of niche construction theory is primarily used to explain the active role of the organism in its selective environment, DNC is Keywords: meant to indicate the active role of the organism in its developmental environ- developmental niche construction, ment.
    [Show full text]
  • What the Baldwin Effect Affects Depends on the Nature of Plasticity T ⁎ Thomas J.H
    Cognition 197 (2020) 104165 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Cognition journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cognit What the Baldwin Effect affects depends on the nature of plasticity T ⁎ Thomas J.H. Morgana,b,c, , Jordan W. Suchowc, Thomas L. Griffithsc a Arizona State University, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, 900 S. Cady Mall, Tempe 85287, United States of America b Arizona State University, Institute of Human Origins, 951 S. Cady Mall, Tempe 85287, United States of America c University of California, Berkeley, Department of Psychology, Tolman Hall, Berkeley 94720, United States of America ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: In a process known as the Baldwin Effect, developmental plasticity, such as learning, has been argued toac- Baldwin effect celerate the biological evolution of high-fitness traits, including language and complex intelligence. Herewe Learning investigate the evolutionary consequences of developmental plasticity by asking which aspects of a plastic trait Plasticity are the focus of genetic change. The aspects we consider are: (i) dependencies between elements of a trait, (ii) the Evolution importance of each element to fitness, and (iii) the difficulty of acquiring each element through plasticity. We also explore (iv) how cultural inheritance changes the relationship between plasticity and genetic change. We find that evolution by natural selection preferentially fixes elements that are depended upon byothers,im- portant to fitness, or difficult to acquire through plasticity, but that cultural inheritance can suppress andeven reverse genetic change. We replicate some of these effects in experimental evolutionary simulations with human learners. We conclude that what the Baldwin Effect affects depends upon the mechanism of plasticity, whichfor behavior and cognition includes the psychology of learning.
    [Show full text]
  • Life's Irreducible Structure—Part 2: Naturalistic Objections
    Papers Life’s irreducible structure—Part 2: naturalistic objections Alex Williams In Part I of this article, I showed that autopoiesis (self-making) provides a compelling case for the intelligent design of life because all aspects of life lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanation. Here in Part II the argument from autopoiesis is tested against commonly cited naturalistic objections to intelligent design. It comes through soundly intact, even strengthened because the opponents of design agree on the facts. They disagree on the historical inferences, but only intelligent design meets the criterion of an acceptable historical inference according to the Law of Cause and Effect. Naturalistic explanations of biological origins in the face of universally contradictory evidence depend upon faulty reasoning such as: (i) exclusion by definition and ridicule, (ii) assuming what must be proved, (iii) misinterpreting the scientific evidence, (iv) assigning unrealistic properties to the environment, and (v) misusing the concept of chance. In Polanyi’s terms, now is a very reasonable time to declare the impossibility of a naturalistic origin of life and accept that it was intelligently designed. In Part I of this article,1 I argued as follows: Note that this principle is not objective knowledge—we (i) Autopoiesis (self-making) is universal and therefore cannot visit all of time and space to verify it, so it is just a essential to life, so it is required at the beginning for convenient but necessary philosophical assumption. Most life to exist and is thus not the end product of some long people do not realize that this principle underlies all of naturalistic process.
    [Show full text]
  • Better Living Through Evolution the Science of Novelty and Complexity in Life Forms by Daniel L
    Browser-final 10/12/05 9:50 AM Page 22 formations, with insightful illustrations quirky and rambling, but somehow al- and particle/wave dualities. To get ready for provided for assistance. Those who stick ways intriguing. that day, aspiring theoretical physicists are with it are rewarded with a realistic peek How seriously should we take all this encouraged to buy a copy, for there’s much at physicists at play, seeing how they can talk of vibrating strings and parallel uni- inspiration to be found here. absorb a new concept and fashion poten- verses? Hypotheses in high-energy physics tial solutions to long-held mysteries. rise and fall on the Internet these days, Journalist and author Marcia Bartusiak is a visit- Warped Passages is more challenging than sometimes in a matter of hours. But I can ing professor in the Graduate Program in Science most popular science works, but highly imagine getting comfortable with branes Writing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technol- accessible to the physics-minded because and higher dimensions, as some of us are al- ogy. Her latest books are Einstein’s Unfinished of Randall’s lucid explanations. It’s ready accustomed to black holes, relativity, Symphony and Archives of the Universe. Better Living through Evolution The science of novelty and complexity in life forms by daniel l. hartl rançois jacob, one of the pio- are the sequences of neers in molecular biology, was in- such macromolecules terviewed a few years ago for an ed- similar, they are more ucational video now used in similar among more Harvard’s new undergraduate bi- closely related organ- Fology curriculum (Life Sciences 1b: “Ge- isms.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Learning and the Baldwin Effect David Papineau 1
    Social Learning and the Baldwin Effect David Papineau 1 Introduction The Baldwin effect occurs, if it ever does, when a biological trait becomes innate as a result of first being learned. Suppose that some trait is initially absent from a population of organisms. Then a number of organisms succeed in learning the trait. There will be a Baldwin effect if this period of learning leads to the trait becoming innate throughout the population. Put like that, it sounds like Lamarckism. But that is not the idea. When James Mark Baldwin and others first posited the Baldwin effect over a hundred years ago, their concern was precisely to uncover a respectable Darwinian mechanism for the Baldwin effect 1[1]. The great German cytologist Augustus Weismann had already persuaded them that there is no automatic genetic inheritance of acquired characteristics: the ontogenetic acquisition of a phenotypic trait cannot in itself alter the genetic material of the lineage that has acquired it. The thought behind the Baldwin effect is in effect that an alternative Darwinian mechanism might nevertheless mimic Lamarckism, in allowing learning to influence genetic evolution, but without requiring Lamarck’s own discredited hypothesis that learning directly affects the genome. Why should we be interested in the possibility of Baldwin effects? One reason the topic attracts attention is no doubt that it seems to soften the blind randomness of natural selection, by allowing the creative powers of mind to make a difference. Still, there are other good reasons for being interested in the Baldwin effect, apart from wanting some higher power to direct the course of evolution.
    [Show full text]