Evolution, or just adaptation?

I need some serious evidence that "DNA's systems of communications and regulation do change and evolve within a lifetime and from generation to generation." I don't even know what those systems of communication are.

~~ Paul

I hope you expect me to produce evidence from data and process models on two levels.  Electrochemistry and biophysics will describe one level revealing states with very low entropy and high degrees of complexity in terms of regulated processes.

Denis Noble is a leading spokesman for the Physiology community.  From Wiki, who shows their bias with a horrible picture of him - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Noble

 
Noble has called for an extended evolutionary synthesis, and more controversially a replacement for the modern synthesis.

He has argued that from research in epigenetics, acquired characteristics can be inherited and in contrast to the modern synthesis, genetic change is "far from random" and not always gradual. He has also claimed that the central dogma of molecular biology has been broken as an "embodiment of the Weismann Barrier", and a new synthesis will integrate research from physiology with evolutionary biology. 

Besides the Physiology, there is the analysis of the data in terms of the Bioinformatics.

Is their doubt that organism bodies adapt and change to environmental conditions? 

Is their still doubt about a "Lamarckian leak" where natural selection works on a species long-term ability to use informational tools to benefit its survival?   This is being addressed in a new field called Systems Bioinformatics.

Didn't want to start a new thread so looked for something relevant and found this one.

Very interesting study that challenges the neo-darwinian orthodoxy.  I hope to find more on the topic to see how the biological scientific mainstream is reacting to this study.  I'm sure additional studies need to be conducted to validate this finding, but it seems like a big one.

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/941828

A new study by a team of researchers from Israel and Ghana has brought the first evidence of nonrandom mutation in human genes, challenging a core assumption at the heart of evolutionary theory by showing a long-term directional mutational response to environmental pressure.

Contrary to the widely accepted expectations, the results supported the nonrandom pattern. The HbS mutation originated de novo not only much faster than expected from random mutation, but also much faster in the population (in sub-Saharan Africans as opposed to Europeans) and in the gene (in the beta-globin as opposed to the control delta-globin gene) where it is of adaptive significance. These results upend the traditional example of random mutation and natural selection, turning it into an example of a nonrandom yet non-Lamarckian mutation.

Didn't want to start a new thread so looked for something relevant and found this one.

Very interesting study that challenges the neo-darwinian orthodoxy.  I hope to find more on the topic to see how the biological scientific mainstream is reacting to this study.  I'm sure additional studies need to be conducted to validate this finding, but it seems like a big one.

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/941828

Thanks, just saw the original paper, as it is free to download.  The research is a collaborative piece between nine scientist and involves a dozen institutions.  It was a detailed project and is specific to "brand new" mutations and they have hard data on an example.  They found that the "random" target mutation was connected to other factors, and hence not random.  The structure for the change was abstracted from favorable trends of genetic activity.

The news article set me off, claiming that non-random genetic processes are a new development.  They are not.  Lynn Caporale published Darwin in the Genome, more than 20  years ago.  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lynn-Caporale 

 Lynn Caporale is an independent consultant in translational medicine and drug discovery. In addition, the scope of her research spans Biotechnology, Evolutionary Biochemistry and Genomics. A recent publication is 'In Darwinian evolution, feedback from natural selection leads to biased mutations'.

https://www.amazon.com/Books-Lynn-Capora...n+Caporale

Thanks, just saw the original paper, as it is free to download.  The research is a collaborative piece between nine scientist and involves a dozen institutions.  It was a detailed project and is specific to "brand new" mutations and they have hard data on an example.  They found that the "random" target mutation was connected to other factors, and hence not random.  The structure for the change was abstracted from favorable trends of genetic activity.

The news article set me off, claiming that non-random genetic processes are a new development.  They are not.  Lynn Caporale published Darwin in the Genome, more than 20  years ago.  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lynn-Caporale 

https://www.amazon.com/Books-Lynn-Capora...n+Caporale

Thanks Stephen.

So, to you and others: Does this not allude, in some way, to a design?  (Note: I'm being careful to keep any religious tradition out of this by avoiding the use of God or Designer.)  Stated another way, if its not random then it must have purpose/design.  From where would this design have come?

Struggling to see how the materialist dogmatic responds to this.

Thanks Stephen.

So, to you and others: Does this not allude, in some way, to a design?  (Note: I'm being careful to keep any religious tradition out of this by avoiding the use of God or Designer.)  Stated another way, if its not random then it must have purpose/design.  From where would this design have come?

One example I'm most familiar with is E. coli, where it's adaption to a new energy source, occurs far too fast for the adaption to only be caused by random mutation.

Personally, i like the idea that the organism's adaption is influenced by non-classical quantum processes from it's past, *and* from the future, which would allow the organism to somehow add-up all future patterns of itself non-classically, to weight it's future pattern, by favoring the greatest number of matching patterns that exist in the future.

I don't think anything is really random, it's just that nature is so huge and complex that when we don't have any theory, we use labels like random and co-incidence. I'm not sure about design either, seems a loaded term. Everything seems to emerge naturally from some very simple underlying system. But perhaps that simple system *is* designed.

Personally, I favour everyday reality being a shared subset, of all sets. How much can be shared, depends on how similar ones patterns are, as only matching patterns seem able to be shared. The remainder of ones set, remains outside of everyday reality. So one's everyday reality, is dictated only by what matching patterns one can share.

I'm not sure about design either, seems a loaded term. Everything seems to emerge naturally from some very simple underlying system. But perhaps that simple system *is* designed.

It certainly is loaded.  I get that.  The irony to me is the "free miracle" element that seems to persist when we contort a description into more materialistic terms.  (The bold above.)

Just interesting to me that while there is no proof of this spontaneity, materialists seem more than willing to have faith in it.  "I can't explain it yet, but the universe just sprang into being" or "The start of the universe is a non-valuable question, perhaps its always existed".

Yet, someone dare mention consciousness in some non-emergent fashion and that's "woo".

It certainly is loaded.  I get that.  The irony to me is the "free miracle" element that seems to persist when we contort a description into more materialistic terms.  (The bold above.)

Just interesting to me that while there is no proof of this spontaneity, materialists seem more than willing to have faith in it.  "I can't explain it yet, but the universe just sprang into being" or "The start of the universe is a non-valuable question, perhaps its always existed".

Yet, someone dare mention consciousness in some non-emergent fashion and that's "woo".

I don't think, you can't get from that place... to where I am... using those labels and ideas.

The underlying system I'm talking about is hidden where particles collide and scatter... it's not directly accessible to us from here, it never will be... we currently guess at what's going on in this place, describing it with non-physical things like virtual particles... but it's simply not satisfactory to guess, and make stuff up. If we try and look, this place turns into a black hole, defeating our attempts. We absolutely have no satisfactory theory to describe particle scattering, not yet.

Thanks Stephen.

So, to you and others: Does this not allude, in some way, to a design?  (Note: I'm being careful to keep any religious tradition out of this by avoiding the use of God or Designer.)  Stated another way, if its not random then it must have purpose/design.  From where would this design have come?

Struggling to see how the materialist dogmatic responds to this.

There is natural design, which won't address concepts that refer to supernatural design.  It should be more recognized as science!!!  Sure, architecture is already well-developed science.  There are also design elements, like architectural elements, in virtual modality.  Above, Max mentions design behind designing processes.  Yeah, that is exactly what Caporale, and others since, are finding in the genetic code.  

My favorite design science folks are Buckminster Fuller and Don Norman. 

 "I did not set out to design a geodesic dome," Fuller once said, "I set out to discover the principles operative in Universe. For all I knew, this could have led to a pair of flying slippers." This playful declaration stands as a concise summary of the philosophy behind Fuller's life's work and introduces the relationship of synergetics to design. "Design science," in the most general terms, maintains that faithful observation of Universe is the basis of successful invention. The idea therefore is not to invent some strange new gadget, hoping there will be a market for it, but rather to tap into the exquisite workings of nature

 

Natural designs can occur randomly.  However, this should not block the fact that most designs and symbols, which we care about, are purposeful.  The difference is easily quantified by tracking both the semantic and formal information, while it is transforming.  The whole issue is whether mind really exists?  The answer is --> to measure mind in relation to its role in natural outcomes.

For me  --  mind is a Darwinian activity that effects bio-evolution, as it effects outcomes.  And these outcomes can be analyzed logically.  Caporale can talk about natural selection and the effects of mental information, as feedback  --- because Charles Darwin had mind as part of his theory.

Materialism is a philosophy.  Science is killing its grandiose claims.

One example I'm most familiar with is E. coli, where it's adaption to a new energy source, occurs far too fast for the adaption to only be caused by random mutation.

That's a bold statement. Why do you think so?

~~ Paul

That's a bold statement. Why do you think so?

~~ Paul

I'd be curious to read what you make of this?  https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-e...4#pid46724

Seems directionally similar to the comment of Max's you questioned.