Yes, it's all about probabilities. And it has been calculated that it would take trillions of years for random mutation & natural selection to create the complex structures in multi-cellular organisms. So we are stuck with quantum evolution, or something even more fantastical, like intelligent design or that we live within a simulation.
The bacterial immune responses that crispr technology exploits are Lamarkian; viral sequence fragments are written into the bacterial DNA for later reference.
Lateral gene transfer is suprisingly common, for example: Placental sycncitin protein is viral in origin. And our whole genome is so saturated with endogenous retrovirus degraded course and failed copies it looks like craters in a ww1 battlefield.
It may seem ridiculous, but I want to question the notion that sex cuts fitness in half. Yes, everyone says so, as it seems patently obvious - but isn't the fact that only half of ones genes end up in ones progeny exactly compensated by only having to make half the parental investment? (On average that is. If the unequal investment we see between mothers and fathers in many species proves troublesome to my notion, I would point out that such distinctions arose After the existence of sexual reproduction.) This seems as patently obvious to me as the 50% fitness cost does to everyone else, but if I'm the one who's missing something, please clue me in.
You're exactly right for mammals and birds, in which parental investment is substantial. It's harder to explain how sex overcomes a factor of 2 in reproductive fitness for fish or most reptiles or insects which lay eggs and have nothing further to do with their offspring.
Parental investment never goes down to zero though, in any taxon. And mustn't it in order for your point to be valid? This isn't merely about care/feeding. Gametes/zygotes can't be produced without a slew of biomolecules that all have embodied energy. Whatever the overall extent of parental investment, it's the same factor of 2. You double your capacity to reproduce by having a partner.
It's true the cost is never zero, but males produce oodles of sperm with minimal energy investment. That's why the factor of two is traditionally referred to as the "cost of males".
Whoa! First consider that from the female's perspective, all she has to do is manufacture a tiny bit of sperm and she can double her fitness. Why doesn't she do it? (Roundworms do exactly thiis.)
Before we even get there, consider the evolved mechanism of meiosis, including maintaining 2 copies of each chromosome, segregation of the chromosomes, crossover of genes between homologous chromosomes, developing sex organs and mating behaviors. All of this is ON TOP OF the twofold cost of males.
Meiosis hardly sounds like an expense to me. As for sex organs, mating behaviors, and the cost of males - I would reiterate the point I touched on in my first comment more broadly. Subsequent traits pertaining to sex which evolve after the establishment of sex in general can't, logically, have any bearing on whether or not sex should evolve at all. None of them HAD to happen. I don't particularly find those things curiosities either, lol. Reasonable explanations immediately come to mind. One that I wouldn't have thought of until I discovered your work on aging: perhaps they exist to prevent backsliding into an asexual mode. Bdelloid rotifers may be doomed to go the way of the Rocky Mountain Locust.
I do know that mitochondrial DNA traces the maternal lineage, as Y chromosomes trace the paternal lineage. How do you think this affects evolutionary dynamics more generally?
- part of the body that (supposedly) does not evolve over time. Which begs the question how do the theories of evolution address this (do we all have Eve’s mitochondria)?
- being the engine of all human cells that converts chemical energy from food we eat, may affect our ability to adapt to changes in our environment, such as: cold temperatures due to ice ages or hot temperatures between ice ages; or the thermal efficiency of our cells and all the associated impacts on survival of the fittest. So it may take millions of years to see “cause and effect”.
- so this central part of us doesn’t change randomly (Darwin), nor by adaption (Lamarck).
Mitochondria are much like blue-green algae, accepted into eukaryotic cells, which provide a supportive environment, while the mitochondria provide oxydative conversion of fat and carbohydrate into the cellular energy tokens, ATP, which release their energy elsewhere, to become ADP, which returns to the mitochondria to be recharged.
A fairly advanced life form was completely accepted as a "vassal" into complex eukaryotic cells which needed a functionality it could provide, in return for a stable home.
Josh, may you live to a 100 years! I was on the verge of dropping you a note to find out if all is well. You have been uncharacteristically absent from my inbox for well over a month.
I shall wait for your next two parts before putting in my dime's worth. For now, you take me by surprise by siding with materialist-evolutionists after multiple essays on consciousness and metaphysics.
This has been bouncing around in my consciousness since I saw it recently. We perceive one dimension of time, as a one-way vector forward, but we can see evidence that things can "happen" in both directions in certain experiments.
What if there are 3 bidirectional dimensions of "Time"?
Universe is built on three dimensions of time, new research suggests
"the universe is fundamentally built on three dimensions of time."
Sabine Hossenfelder, a metaphysical physical-ist I presume, would (does) beg to differ. I disagree with them both. Time is so fundamental that each time axis has 3 sub dimensions and observers on one temporal axis are blind to the other two.
Gunther Kletschker claims to be able to calculate exact masses for electron, quarks, mesons, and even neutrinos. This is a big deal. Standard particle physics just takes these numbers as "what they happen to be". But the calculation isn't included in his paper. "Additional computational details are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request."
The paper also doesn't answer the obvious question -- why we perceive time as the one-dimensional flow that is our experience.
Sabine dismisses the idea as too abstract without going into details.
Josh, thanks for the research. I’ll take a look but most advanced math (and physics) is over my pay grade. That’s why I like Hermetic teachings: Facts (principles that western science took 1000’s of years to confirm) without figures . . . fingers or toes :-)
“The paper also doesn't answer the obvious question -- why we perceive time as the one-dimensional flow that is our experience.”
I have the same complaint. If I understand, force on one axis is not expressed on an orthogonal axis? Substitute time for force in a (too simple) 2-D (time) model. An object at rest (on t-1) has a t-1 coefficient of 1.0 and a t-2 value of zero. At C/2 each has a value of 0.707 but we only observe the t-1 value. At C, the t-2 value is 1.0 and the t-1 value is zero, which is what we observe.
It's a figure of speech, an Indian blessing of long life to someone who appears just when you think of them or speak about them. Coined a very long time ago when average human life expectancy was perhaps in the 40s. But I take your point. In the present context, anything less than immortality is too timid!
An important aspect is also that whilst DNA-> RNA-> proteins, it also goes the other way where RNA coverts to DNA. That is a plausible mechanism for converting life experience / environmental exposure to DNA, which may then be passed onto the offspring.
Very interesting article, but you may need to incorporate the fact that a human offspring is the product of:
- the father’s sperm (DNA); and
- the mother’s egg produced NOT by the mother but by the maternal grandmother using her DNA, when she produced the mother, which as a new baby including all her eggs for the rest of her life.
"The Darwinian claim that evolution is driven by random mutations is false on mathematical grounds alone." -- Lynn Margulis
"The more we learn about evolution, the more obvious it becomes that Darwin’s theory is inadequate." -- Mae-wan Ho
Yes, it's all about probabilities. And it has been calculated that it would take trillions of years for random mutation & natural selection to create the complex structures in multi-cellular organisms. So we are stuck with quantum evolution, or something even more fantastical, like intelligent design or that we live within a simulation.
You're anticipating what I'll say next week...
Looks like the makings of a great series, Josh!
What differentiates stray cosmic rays from other cosmic rays?
😁
> What differentiates stray cosmic rays from other cosmic rays?
Galactural Selection? 🤣
Galactural Selection?
Natural Selection on a Galactic scale 🤯
Natural selection cannot be proven where causes are random or "stray."
The bacterial immune responses that crispr technology exploits are Lamarkian; viral sequence fragments are written into the bacterial DNA for later reference.
Lateral gene transfer is suprisingly common, for example: Placental sycncitin protein is viral in origin. And our whole genome is so saturated with endogenous retrovirus degraded course and failed copies it looks like craters in a ww1 battlefield.
It may seem ridiculous, but I want to question the notion that sex cuts fitness in half. Yes, everyone says so, as it seems patently obvious - but isn't the fact that only half of ones genes end up in ones progeny exactly compensated by only having to make half the parental investment? (On average that is. If the unequal investment we see between mothers and fathers in many species proves troublesome to my notion, I would point out that such distinctions arose After the existence of sexual reproduction.) This seems as patently obvious to me as the 50% fitness cost does to everyone else, but if I'm the one who's missing something, please clue me in.
You're exactly right for mammals and birds, in which parental investment is substantial. It's harder to explain how sex overcomes a factor of 2 in reproductive fitness for fish or most reptiles or insects which lay eggs and have nothing further to do with their offspring.
Parental investment never goes down to zero though, in any taxon. And mustn't it in order for your point to be valid? This isn't merely about care/feeding. Gametes/zygotes can't be produced without a slew of biomolecules that all have embodied energy. Whatever the overall extent of parental investment, it's the same factor of 2. You double your capacity to reproduce by having a partner.
It's true the cost is never zero, but males produce oodles of sperm with minimal energy investment. That's why the factor of two is traditionally referred to as the "cost of males".
Yup, from the male's perspective - not a cost. I stand by my assertion that the evolution of sex is no big head scratcher.
Whoa! First consider that from the female's perspective, all she has to do is manufacture a tiny bit of sperm and she can double her fitness. Why doesn't she do it? (Roundworms do exactly thiis.)
Before we even get there, consider the evolved mechanism of meiosis, including maintaining 2 copies of each chromosome, segregation of the chromosomes, crossover of genes between homologous chromosomes, developing sex organs and mating behaviors. All of this is ON TOP OF the twofold cost of males.
Meiosis hardly sounds like an expense to me. As for sex organs, mating behaviors, and the cost of males - I would reiterate the point I touched on in my first comment more broadly. Subsequent traits pertaining to sex which evolve after the establishment of sex in general can't, logically, have any bearing on whether or not sex should evolve at all. None of them HAD to happen. I don't particularly find those things curiosities either, lol. Reasonable explanations immediately come to mind. One that I wouldn't have thought of until I discovered your work on aging: perhaps they exist to prevent backsliding into an asexual mode. Bdelloid rotifers may be doomed to go the way of the Rocky Mountain Locust.
Your content Josh brings to mind the writings of Zecharia Sitchin which I am battling to understand fully.. Much appreciated. (from Johannesburg)
Have you considered “Mitochondrial DNA” which is passed down from generation to generation via the female lineage ([with no male input?])?
I do know that mitochondrial DNA traces the maternal lineage, as Y chromosomes trace the paternal lineage. How do you think this affects evolutionary dynamics more generally?
This could affect temporal aspects of evolution:
- part of the body that (supposedly) does not evolve over time. Which begs the question how do the theories of evolution address this (do we all have Eve’s mitochondria)?
- being the engine of all human cells that converts chemical energy from food we eat, may affect our ability to adapt to changes in our environment, such as: cold temperatures due to ice ages or hot temperatures between ice ages; or the thermal efficiency of our cells and all the associated impacts on survival of the fittest. So it may take millions of years to see “cause and effect”.
- so this central part of us doesn’t change randomly (Darwin), nor by adaption (Lamarck).
Mitochondria are much like blue-green algae, accepted into eukaryotic cells, which provide a supportive environment, while the mitochondria provide oxydative conversion of fat and carbohydrate into the cellular energy tokens, ATP, which release their energy elsewhere, to become ADP, which returns to the mitochondria to be recharged.
A fairly advanced life form was completely accepted as a "vassal" into complex eukaryotic cells which needed a functionality it could provide, in return for a stable home.
Josh, may you live to a 100 years! I was on the verge of dropping you a note to find out if all is well. You have been uncharacteristically absent from my inbox for well over a month.
I shall wait for your next two parts before putting in my dime's worth. For now, you take me by surprise by siding with materialist-evolutionists after multiple essays on consciousness and metaphysics.
I'm starting from the traditional view of evolution, but let's talk again after you see where Part 3 ends up.
This has been bouncing around in my consciousness since I saw it recently. We perceive one dimension of time, as a one-way vector forward, but we can see evidence that things can "happen" in both directions in certain experiments.
What if there are 3 bidirectional dimensions of "Time"?
Universe is built on three dimensions of time, new research suggests
A new theory challenges the idea of spacetime, proposing that the universe is fundamentally built on three dimensions of time. https://interestingengineering.com/science/time-has-three-dimensions
"the universe is fundamentally built on three dimensions of time."
Sabine Hossenfelder, a metaphysical physical-ist I presume, would (does) beg to differ. I disagree with them both. Time is so fundamental that each time axis has 3 sub dimensions and observers on one temporal axis are blind to the other two.
I've downloaded the original article and glanced at it.
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/epdf/10.1142/S2424942425500045
Gunther Kletschker claims to be able to calculate exact masses for electron, quarks, mesons, and even neutrinos. This is a big deal. Standard particle physics just takes these numbers as "what they happen to be". But the calculation isn't included in his paper. "Additional computational details are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request."
The paper also doesn't answer the obvious question -- why we perceive time as the one-dimensional flow that is our experience.
Sabine dismisses the idea as too abstract without going into details.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWzK6nITCK0
Josh, thanks for the research. I’ll take a look but most advanced math (and physics) is over my pay grade. That’s why I like Hermetic teachings: Facts (principles that western science took 1000’s of years to confirm) without figures . . . fingers or toes :-)
“The paper also doesn't answer the obvious question -- why we perceive time as the one-dimensional flow that is our experience.”
I have the same complaint. If I understand, force on one axis is not expressed on an orthogonal axis? Substitute time for force in a (too simple) 2-D (time) model. An object at rest (on t-1) has a t-1 coefficient of 1.0 and a t-2 value of zero. At C/2 each has a value of 0.707 but we only observe the t-1 value. At C, the t-2 value is 1.0 and the t-1 value is zero, which is what we observe.
Thank You, Til. I would appreciate further elucidation if that is possible. I have been mulling over your mention of "asymptotes".
"asymptotes" . . . is splitting ortho hairs-) I've been working, slowly, w/ my Ramble
Lemme-know when you can communicate more.
;-)
I don't speak for him of course, but I suspect living only to 100 would be a disappointment.
It's a figure of speech, an Indian blessing of long life to someone who appears just when you think of them or speak about them. Coined a very long time ago when average human life expectancy was perhaps in the 40s. But I take your point. In the present context, anything less than immortality is too timid!
An important aspect is also that whilst DNA-> RNA-> proteins, it also goes the other way where RNA coverts to DNA. That is a plausible mechanism for converting life experience / environmental exposure to DNA, which may then be passed onto the offspring.
Yes -- see the coming installment.
Very interesting article, but you may need to incorporate the fact that a human offspring is the product of:
- the father’s sperm (DNA); and
- the mother’s egg produced NOT by the mother but by the maternal grandmother using her DNA, when she produced the mother, which as a new baby including all her eggs for the rest of her life.
I think the eggs with which a woman is born come from the DNA of her father as well as her mother.
There is recently some controversy over whether a woman's ovaries might have stem cells that continue to create some new eggs during her lifetime.
References?
Thanks for clarifying. Good point. So a persons DNA is a product of:
- father’s DNA;
- maternal grandmother’s DNA; and
- maternal grandfathers’s DNA.