Sorry, I'm really having trouble with your argument here. As my understanding goes, you disagree with the idea that the gene is the main unit of natural selection. The way I see it is that, although a self replicating membrane bounded system may have existed prior to DNA, this system has been hijacked by the genes, and is now being used and modified continually by the genes that ride inside the membranes.
As far as I am aware, membrane manufacture is controlled by the genes, although not being actually executed by the genes themselves. So your genes will determine the composition of certain membranes. Yes, the membrane provides the stage on which the genes perform their wonderful tricks, but without genes, you would just have a bunch of identical membranes, right? I might be wrong, but I am in 1st year, and not very far into Cambell & Reece at the moment.
I just thought of another point. Although viruses are not technically alive, they do evolve, and they also drive evolution (horizontal gene transfer). Viruses have no membrane, only a protein coat, and yet they wreak havoc, and are constantly evolving. I don't see how this could be possible if genes were not the central unit of natural selection.
You seem to one of the few people aware of this summit. It was boycotted by the National Academy of Sciences because of what they perceived as ammunition for advocates intelligent Design. Bad move. This summit featuring some of the superstars of evolutionary biology is a very unpopular subject among neo Darwinist. I'm surprised Pigliucci was apart of that whole thing.
Oh. I am familiar with natural philosophy. I have read a bit and taken some courses. It was your use of the term "human natural philosophy". I have several difficulties with this field of study...but those are my problem. Thanks for your reply. Peace.
At 2:47 you opened a can of worms. Or a worm of cans, or a worm of worms, or a can of cans, WHATEVER. Basically, I haven't heard any evidence to suggest the natural universe works in the same way the biological universe works. If one thing is for sure, the biological universe works in the pursuit of its own survival, and reproduction. There is nothing to suggest individual atoms, rocks, asteroids, moons, planets, or stars give A GODDAMN about their existence.
0ThouArtThat0: "The inhumane approach of neo-Darwinism was never very appealing to me, and I'm glad that" someone spoon-fed you with some nebulous, comforting bullshit to abate your primal fears?
Fuck whether it's appealing to you, does the Universe owe you hope, purpose, wish-fulfilment, and some fur-lined panties?!
No, but nor is all of nature out to get me. I think nature is more about networking, cooperation, symbiosis, etc than it is about unbridled competition.
Take a look at the current issue of New Scientist 12 July 2008...It is a really summary of the present state of epigenetic research...It doesn't give short shrift either to the research and its implication for cancer. I would like to make a video about this, but to be honest, it's like opening a Pandora's box of haters and trolls...I don't know WHY they should care so much...There is also another very balanced article in...I can see I can't do this this way. OK...I guess I'll make another vid.
OK...I've made a very fast video response, but I'm not able to post it to this one, and I don't have any more time. It is my latest video....I'll try to repost it to yours this evening. But very good video, Matt!
I am 100% for evolution and that is because no other thing have ever been able to explain how genetics. fossil records, and changes in creatures adapting to a new environment I mean all you need is environment and does less suited will die and those who survives will reproduce with variation. For people who question evolution should check out this people channals /user/AronRa and /user/potholer54 and /user/DonExodus2 and /Potholer54debunks and of course /user/Thunderf00t
I agree with what you say and I think there could be methods to industrialize, in a broad sense, these more amorphous understandings of gene/environment. Like a good reductionist, I look to see what the common denominator is, make it salient, then organize a strategy to control the profit of that knowledge. For knowledge sake or other economy.
Reductionism is a disease old as east deciding to crawl west, or vice versa. Someone could say that. I think I just did, I think I just did, I think I
Epigenetics is not magic. It is just new. It has to do with changes in gene expression that are stable through mitosis but it doesn't change the underlying DNA sequence of the organism. It is just further understanding. It is science, more detailed and refined.
The scientist PZ Myers of Pharngula blog fame has a video discussion on bloggingheads d,ot tv with graduate student Abbie Smith of ERV blog fame. They discussed epigenetics at the start. Check it out.
I would never argue otherwise. The fact that epigenetics and complexity theory are not phantasmagorical magic but new scientific understanding is exactly the point.
I don't know what implications this has on evolutionary theory but I don't think Neo-Darwinian synthesis will be tossed out. This is science though and Gary sounds like a science denier in his latest video(response to you). He seems to have forgone the process of actually trying to understand what he tries to refute.
Much of this is a forum for radicals to vent. Time will likely show that some of it has value--such as epigenetics--and the rest is just an unfortunate distraction--like Wilsonian^2 sociobiology. My two cents, at least.
hah, read the article... wacky fella. has a point but in a way puts us back to square one. i mean it's ALL in square one. chicken hits itself over the head with an egg. and voila. may the "strongest" quark survive. hah. i think it's all the more infuriating with all the timely evidence of transitions happening. sortof gives a new meaning to horizon problem of the big bang.
I enjoyed that paper : ) We are half machine, half divine spark. I can live with that.
Lima-de-Faria may be ahead of his time. Eventually the physicists and the biologists are going to half to get together and talk about how this could have happened (how the universe could have happened, and still be happening, etc)... It's going to require both of them to transform. Physics will recognize the creativity of matter; biologists will recognize the form of living organisms. I think Faria is close.
Lima-de-Faria says life "has no beginning; it is a process inherent to the structure of the universe."
This quote sounds very interesting, but I think that organic life does appear at a certain period in processes and so in a sense has a type of beginning. It also depends on how you define "life" or "beginning".
and industry will decide what's the truth... or reality of not being able to find the cures (tho it's debatable how hard, paymentwise, they explore them). still, after history digests it, sooner or later we shall learn what is right. obviousness squared, but wth.
since academically I'm makeing an effort to convert literature into image, I have just one request. Please let us see your facial expressions as you share your ideas. Just exactly how you yourself feel about things is why I'm here.
One of the ideas I've been working with lately is that individual diversity has organismic functions that "evolve" seemingly from within. Various types of people seem to function as organs for the health of the greater organism. I'm thinking specifically that there may be a link between unrealized needs of our society and the emergence of so many "autistic" children, some of whom the new agers movement might refer to as "Indigos". New organs in the collective organism.
This is a cool development. Phony clones not withstanding, it's a prominent feature of scientific research that enough money tends to support your research hypothesis, regardless of it's validity.
thank you for uploading
potpie921 3 months ago
Sorry, I'm really having trouble with your argument here. As my understanding goes, you disagree with the idea that the gene is the main unit of natural selection. The way I see it is that, although a self replicating membrane bounded system may have existed prior to DNA, this system has been hijacked by the genes, and is now being used and modified continually by the genes that ride inside the membranes.
SuperGeo1987 1 year ago
As far as I am aware, membrane manufacture is controlled by the genes, although not being actually executed by the genes themselves. So your genes will determine the composition of certain membranes. Yes, the membrane provides the stage on which the genes perform their wonderful tricks, but without genes, you would just have a bunch of identical membranes, right? I might be wrong, but I am in 1st year, and not very far into Cambell & Reece at the moment.
SuperGeo1987 1 year ago
I just thought of another point. Although viruses are not technically alive, they do evolve, and they also drive evolution (horizontal gene transfer). Viruses have no membrane, only a protein coat, and yet they wreak havoc, and are constantly evolving. I don't see how this could be possible if genes were not the central unit of natural selection.
SuperGeo1987 1 year ago
nice, where can i find some links???
nickmackay21 2 years ago
You seem to one of the few people aware of this summit. It was boycotted by the National Academy of Sciences because of what they perceived as ammunition for advocates intelligent Design. Bad move. This summit featuring some of the superstars of evolutionary biology is a very unpopular subject among neo Darwinist. I'm surprised Pigliucci was apart of that whole thing.
benthemiester 2 years ago
Epigenetics,
complexity,
morphology,
(and you forgot to mention) embryology.
!Opinion Alert!
It seems to me that the whole edifice of +Ecology+ is not addressed by Darwin's book nor Dawkins' books.
otonanoC 3 years ago
Oh. I am familiar with natural philosophy. I have read a bit and taken some courses. It was your use of the term "human natural philosophy". I have several difficulties with this field of study...but those are my problem. Thanks for your reply. Peace.
daleshankins 3 years ago
At 2:47 you opened a can of worms. Or a worm of cans, or a worm of worms, or a can of cans, WHATEVER. Basically, I haven't heard any evidence to suggest the natural universe works in the same way the biological universe works. If one thing is for sure, the biological universe works in the pursuit of its own survival, and reproduction. There is nothing to suggest individual atoms, rocks, asteroids, moons, planets, or stars give A GODDAMN about their existence.
bigjstokes 3 years ago
i got a new one for you...,,, maxtrixology.
matrixcmitech 3 years ago
Great thanks for the links. I've downloaded all as pdf files & I'll see what I can make of them.
thomasmatus 3 years ago
0ThouArtThat0: "The inhumane approach of neo-Darwinism was never very appealing to me, and I'm glad that" someone spoon-fed you with some nebulous, comforting bullshit to abate your primal fears?
Fuck whether it's appealing to you, does the Universe owe you hope, purpose, wish-fulfilment, and some fur-lined panties?!
Valelacerte 3 years ago
No, but nor is all of nature out to get me. I think nature is more about networking, cooperation, symbiosis, etc than it is about unbridled competition.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Thanks for the links. This ought to keep both my brain cells busy for awhile.
cehbeach 3 years ago
tl;tw version:
GOD DID IT!
Norphax 3 years ago
Thanks for linking me to Massimo's blog entry. Facinating stuff!
ScottishAtheist 3 years ago
Take a look at the current issue of New Scientist 12 July 2008...It is a really summary of the present state of epigenetic research...It doesn't give short shrift either to the research and its implication for cancer. I would like to make a video about this, but to be honest, it's like opening a Pandora's box of haters and trolls...I don't know WHY they should care so much...There is also another very balanced article in...I can see I can't do this this way. OK...I guess I'll make another vid.
2bsirius 3 years ago
OK...I've made a very fast video response, but I'm not able to post it to this one, and I don't have any more time. It is my latest video....I'll try to repost it to yours this evening. But very good video, Matt!
2bsirius 3 years ago
I am 100% for evolution and that is because no other thing have ever been able to explain how genetics. fossil records, and changes in creatures adapting to a new environment I mean all you need is environment and does less suited will die and those who survives will reproduce with variation. For people who question evolution should check out this people channals /user/AronRa and /user/potholer54 and /user/DonExodus2 and /Potholer54debunks and of course /user/Thunderf00t
All love
Eopyk 3 years ago
I agree with what you say and I think there could be methods to industrialize, in a broad sense, these more amorphous understandings of gene/environment. Like a good reductionist, I look to see what the common denominator is, make it salient, then organize a strategy to control the profit of that knowledge. For knowledge sake or other economy.
Reductionism is a disease old as east deciding to crawl west, or vice versa. Someone could say that. I think I just did, I think I just did, I think I
PriestAscetic 3 years ago
Reductionism shouldn't be called a disease but it could be called a symptom, Gary would say something like that.
PriestAscetic 3 years ago
Epigenetics is not magic. It is just new. It has to do with changes in gene expression that are stable through mitosis but it doesn't change the underlying DNA sequence of the organism. It is just further understanding. It is science, more detailed and refined.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
The scientist PZ Myers of Pharngula blog fame has a video discussion on bloggingheads d,ot tv with graduate student Abbie Smith of ERV blog fame. They discussed epigenetics at the start. Check it out.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
I would never argue otherwise. The fact that epigenetics and complexity theory are not phantasmagorical magic but new scientific understanding is exactly the point.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
I don't know what implications this has on evolutionary theory but I don't think Neo-Darwinian synthesis will be tossed out. This is science though and Gary sounds like a science denier in his latest video(response to you). He seems to have forgone the process of actually trying to understand what he tries to refute.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Much of this is a forum for radicals to vent. Time will likely show that some of it has value--such as epigenetics--and the rest is just an unfortunate distraction--like Wilsonian^2 sociobiology. My two cents, at least.
InReasonWeTrust 3 years ago
hah, read the article... wacky fella. has a point but in a way puts us back to square one. i mean it's ALL in square one. chicken hits itself over the head with an egg. and voila. may the "strongest" quark survive. hah. i think it's all the more infuriating with all the timely evidence of transitions happening. sortof gives a new meaning to horizon problem of the big bang.
chitter chatter... tinyurl com /62tkdc
in case if i haven't already shared.
jogayot 3 years ago
I enjoyed that paper : ) We are half machine, half divine spark. I can live with that.
Lima-de-Faria may be ahead of his time. Eventually the physicists and the biologists are going to half to get together and talk about how this could have happened (how the universe could have happened, and still be happening, etc)... It's going to require both of them to transform. Physics will recognize the creativity of matter; biologists will recognize the form of living organisms. I think Faria is close.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
cool...thanks for this
CitizenWorm 3 years ago
Lima-de-Faria says life "has no beginning; it is a process inherent to the structure of the universe."
This quote sounds very interesting, but I think that organic life does appear at a certain period in processes and so in a sense has a type of beginning. It also depends on how you define "life" or "beginning".
pythagoras9 3 years ago
and industry will decide what's the truth... or reality of not being able to find the cures (tho it's debatable how hard, paymentwise, they explore them). still, after history digests it, sooner or later we shall learn what is right. obviousness squared, but wth.
jogayot 3 years ago
excuse me, how you guys in ireland feel.
PeaSoupYum 3 years ago
since academically I'm makeing an effort to convert literature into image, I have just one request. Please let us see your facial expressions as you share your ideas. Just exactly how you yourself feel about things is why I'm here.
PeaSoupYum 3 years ago
One of the ideas I've been working with lately is that individual diversity has organismic functions that "evolve" seemingly from within. Various types of people seem to function as organs for the health of the greater organism. I'm thinking specifically that there may be a link between unrealized needs of our society and the emergence of so many "autistic" children, some of whom the new agers movement might refer to as "Indigos". New organs in the collective organism.
patternsinchaos 3 years ago
This is a cool development. Phony clones not withstanding, it's a prominent feature of scientific research that enough money tends to support your research hypothesis, regardless of it's validity.
patternsinchaos 3 years ago