Is biological evolution a ball rolling up a hill all by itself?
I had a science teacher, back at school, who, although he was a brilliant science teacher, wasn't to keen on biological evolution.
To be fair, back in the 1980's evolutionary sciences weren't what they are today, but I think his religious views may have also clouded his views a little so that he didn't delve much deeper.
He felt that biological evolution was a ball rolling itself uphill.
[img source](By Pnapora , CC BY-SA 3.0, Link)
In other words, he felt that species evolving naturally and becoming more complex without any external help violated the laws of thermodynamics... mainly that entropy and disorder are constantly increasing.
Entropy increasing is a well established fact. In this word of ours energy and other things follow the path of least resistance and as a result things tend to disorder or decay and become less complex over time.
Entropy tends to increase, not decreases.
At first glance it looks like species that are evolving and becoming more complex violate this fundamental principle.
There is a way however for entropy to decrease and for a system to become more complex. For this to occur the system needs to be an open system. Energy needs to be able to flow into and out of the system, work also need to be done within the system. Life makes use of many open systems, that all do work, they are all around us.
We can observe this in something we do everyday, when we eat.
By picking up an apple, chewing, swallowing and digesting it, we disorganize the apple. Or internal processes then extract the nutrients from the apple and discard the waste. Our bodies then use the extracted nutrients to build cells and fuel our activities.
Our bodies (the system) have taken in energy from outside (the apple) the system and used that energy to drive the work processes (digestion, metabolism). The metabolic process(work) has in turn increased the order (built cells etc.). To increase order you must also remove disorder (waste). This disorder (waste) is then removed from the system by going to the bathroom etc.
This also applies to biological evolution.
The planet earth is also not a closed system. It receives energy in the form of sunlight everyday, it radiates or looses energy in the form of heat that radiates out into space every night.
Life has many means of tapping into this energy flow. The organisms and species that are able to extract these resources most effectively are the ones that do best and ultimately survive. The competition between species for these resources is the work process and driving force behind the increasing order and complexity we see in biological evolution.
Basically the laws of thermodynamics are not broken, the energy required to roll the ball uphill, in this case, is supplied by sunlight and the work of rolling the ball is the competition between species.
How many evolutionists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
One, it just takes a really long time.
It would be a lot faster if the evolutionist was a bacteria... but then the light bulb would be screwed in by successive generations of the bacterium's descendants.
DEVOLUTION IS EVOLUTION TOO
Whatever veracity there is in pointing to a subsystem as evidence for the dynamic that caused the system, there is no less veracity in pointing to the system as evidence for the dynamic that caused the super-system. That is to say, your notion that eating validates evolution is logically equivalent to the notion that man validates God.
What is missed in all of these evermore common and oddly framed "issues", all of which leave us peasants incessantly belittling each other, is their origin and purpose. For those who remain genuinely oblivious in that regard, just ask yourself with whom their one allowable (sociallly acceptable) position is perfectly aligned, always and everywhere.
What is proselytized under the banner of "Evolution" is no more about biological changes than "Global Warming" is about temperature changes. Both are political, not scientific. The one has nothing to do with a fossil record in which species inexplicable and suddenly vanish and reappear with hundreds of millions of years stasis and gaps, nor with the quantized quaternary chemical code proven to design all form, function and intelligence of all life forms in all of creation. And the other has nothing to do with temperature trends of a planet recovering from her most recent of many Ice Ages. For a hint to a clue, those who do NOT deny the latter are maligned as "deniers", notably by political activists not by scientists, with evermore calls for criminalizing heretics who question the state's political dogma.
What I'm saying is that the 1st world mind has been hacked by its merciless political hustlers. Reality isn't a two party system. Science isn't "settled". And "denier" is NOT scientific lingo. Don't blindly follow the political psychopaths' siren songs. Theory B is in no way validated by the idiocy of Theory A. Rethink everything the authority figures proselytize to everyone over their entire lives. That includes all the reference points and metrics subtly proffered thereof. EVERYTHING.
I suspect you missed the point of the example.
This was the point.
Its not evidence, just a process, that is more familiar, that operates on similar principles of thermodynamics.
So the universe is an open system then? Surely an open system cannot have a beginning? Cannot be closed one end and open the other. Infinity is not uni-directional. So are you saying there was not a Big Bang that started the ball rolling uphill? Just asking?
awesome info.. I was just wondering if you are explaining science in ebonics LOL - "I has a science teacher"
In any case, there is hidden intelligence when anything evolves biologically. How do cells communicate with each other in terms of evolution. How is that communication passed down. I do remember from science class that bacteria are able to absorb past genetic info and evolve based upon that information left behind - thus anti-biotic resistance. But the way it is communicated and made to actually change is a hidden intelligence. In fact, without a brain you would think that impossible. Life truly is wondrous and these are the reasons I believe in a higher intelligent being behind the scenes directing. Thats where the true brain is.
Bacteria are able to "absorb past genetic info" in the form of plasmids, or circular strands of DNA. The bacteria then incorporates this plasmid DNA into their own genomic DNA through transformation. When the bacterium that underwent transformation reproduces asexually, the "offspring" carry the same genetic material, thus passing along the plasmid DNA sequence for generations. This is the main process behind antibiotic resistance.
ha! Thanks for the biology recap! My point however is how the bacteria "learned" to absorb that information and change. Each tiny bacteria is what like hundreds of millions of DNA coding? The coding is almost like an AI that can process that information. A tiny little computer that can evolve based upon what it learns? Don't you find that incredible? Now couple that with every organ within a human body. Literally a universe in itself.
It is incredible how complex and diverse all life is! Oftentimes while I'm in anatomy I think and wonder if it is possible that some higher being intelligently designed us, as the human body is so specifically designed and optimized.
Think about it this way. Have you ever in your life seen intelligence? No. Intelligence is always behind. Never in front. All we see is the result. Never the cause. Can your ears hear themselves? Can eyes see themselves? Can intelligence be understood? Where do our thoughts come from? Do we see the factory where the thoughts are made? Where do we go to when we sleep or do we cease to exist?
Analysis and dissection however seemingly explanatory simply begs the next question in line - Why? Not "how" which might just be the preserve of science but - why?
The purpose of your life is to discover your cause. And the clock is ticking and it never stops.
hello
You should only comment if you are adding value to the discussion. If you are just asking for votes and follows, you will be flagged (this hurts your reputation) If you don't have something important to say, it is best not to say it. Just some advice so you don't get flagged in the future.
Image source microsoft
I also was a science teacher and was also a working biologist. Evolution of the species by natural selection is pretty much a given for biologists. Bacterial evolution can be seen within a few days and I doubt that many people infected with MRSA would say, "No give me that old time Penicillin. What was good for my grandfather is good for me."
The origin of life is NOT part of 'the theory of evolution thru natural selection.'
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ev.not.html
Non-biological evolution also occurs, the 'robot' revolution taking place right now is a direct result of 'machine learning.' No one is trying to actually WRITE the code for a self-driving car. The code evolves.
The origins of life is another subject entirely. The chemical origins of life is a rich field of study that is producing many examples of chemical evoution.
http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/lattimer/AST248/lecture_13.pdf
https://www.nature.com/subjects/origin-of-life
Two important points to contemplate are:
Fascinating post. Regarding the 2 "important points" in the comment, they reminded me of a brief but brilliant, thought-provoking quote by the philosopher Ken Wilber. He once stated something to the effect, "From amoeba to man, from man to what?"
Another time, Wilber wrote, "If man and woman have come up from amoebas, then they are ultimately on their way to God." (Although I prefer to use the term "divinity," which does not have all the baggage of terms such as "god" or "allah" or "krishna.")
Looked at in that light, there's plenty of room for improvement and lots of time for improvement. Like, a few billion years.
Implicit in Wilber's thought is the understanding that man is not the be-all and end-all of evolution. To assume that we have evolved this far (from amoeba) and that's the end of evolution is absurd.
Another point to consider is the fact that (our) evolution is speeding up. Of course, there are plenty of obstacles, there are many factors holding us back, and there will be plenty of regression (devolution). But a cursory look at any history makes it quite clear that our evolution is becoming increasingly rapid.
Onwards, and full steem ahead. (pun unintended)
No thing can evolve to "God" if by "God" is meant that which exists without limit. Evolution is movement. For that which is without limit there can be no movement. Evolution is ultimately just movement.
Surely, evolution is more than "just movement." Evolution is growth and progress, as evident in the change from amoeba to man.
Compared to amoeba, reptiles or even certain mammals, mankind is an intellectual wonder. And as this "movement / evolution" continues, mankind will transcend our current status to .... who knows what.
As for the assertion that nothing can evolve to "God," that raises a very relevant point. For all its advances and development and evolution, mankind remains a very limited being.
Therefore, the mystics may be right when they state that we are evolving towards the divine. Maybe we will transcend our current biological, temporal, and spatial limits.
That will most likely take a very long time, and it might take forever. On the other hand, it might just take a movement out of time.
Yes that is the crux. Implicit in the notion of evolution is that things are getting better. They are not. You cannot evolve to your cause. Evolution is just going uphill. Step back and look at the rise and fall of species, of empires, of you and me. Everything rises and falls.
As JC is supposed to have said "dust to dust" or as it says in the Tao Te Ching, "the Self watches as the Ten Thousand Things rise and fall". Or another of JC's "Before Abraham was I am"
Not denying the state of Enlightenment, God, i.e. realising the cause. Simply that the notion of a limit becoming limitless is impossible.
very long comments LOL... Sorry, jsut wanted to react here...
thank you for reading. I am glad these postings did not devolve (lol) into a creationist rant.
follow me and keep upvoting
only if you post something
Fantastic post, as a teacher myself, I am always trying to get students to understand their impact on the world around them. Thanks for sharing!
Interesting contrast with your Garden of Eden series< @gavvet. I see you are a very broad thinker; admirable.
Well, not really much to say about the post itself; you've said things I agree with entirely and explained the processes involved succinctly 👏 👏
Excellent! I really like your conclusion. Everyone, every living creature push the ball slowly uphill. Obviously, natural selection plays its role but every individual makes the job to roll the ball uphill!
To clarify, what's evolving in this example? The apple or the eater?
Neither, it simply illustrates how open systems take in energy to perform work and can thereby become more complex and ordered.
Thanks for clarifying. Did you have an example of anything evolving?
An animal eating gets energy to spend (oxidases food). It spends in actions which ultimately leads in reproducing a mutated animal (it couples the free energy released by the oxidation to order processes that instead requires free energy). The new animal is a muted version in a resource limited environment, and all animals use the same resource. Therefore the bests survive on avarage.
This does not violates the first thermodynamic law: the animal gets energy from the apple, energy is not credited nor destroyed.
Also the second law is not violated: the processes that you can couple to your eating (leading to reproduction) require less free energy than you get from the apple. If you count the system apple plus you than the entropy always increases.
check out the discussion around drug resistant bacteria in the comments of this post... that's evolution you can watch since bacteria have such rapid reproduction cycles.
Very interesting. No links there though.
Can you recommend a specific example I can read up on please?
check out this demonstration.
Hope that was in a controlled environment.
Deliberately breeding superbugs like that seems really irresponsible.
Just wondering though; why didn't the improved bacteria flood backwards too and take over all 9 segments from their weaker ancestors?
They were only improved in one aspect, with regards to drug resistance but still essentially the same in most other respects to the wild type. It would take more mutations responding to more kinds of stresses for a broadly stronger variant to emerge.
To simulate that would be even more irresponsible because then we are moving into the realm of new bacterial species and the Pandoras box of potentially weaponized bacteria that the human genome has never seen before.
HIV aids virus when it first emerged was like that. Ebola mutations do similar things.
Animal and plant immune systems are in a constant evolutionary arm race against bacteria, viruses and the like.
Credit: © Wilfred / Fotolia
If the evolution of superbugs is not enough the following article should help. The following quote identifies why this is an example of speciation.
"The offspring were also reproductively isolated because their song, which is used to attract mates, was unusual and failed to attract females from the resident species"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171124084320.htm
Is speciation the same as evolution?
Seems like 'not being able to breed with x' isn't much of an upgrade?
Biologist's definition of species is just that. When the two cannot mate then they are different species. Speciation is the first step as the decedents of the new species become/evolve increasingly different from the original.
I cannot agree with you more as always @gavvet on entropy especially these lines of yours
"There is a way however for entropy to decrease and for a system to become more complex. For this to occur the system needs to be an open system. Energy needs to be able to flow into and out of the system, work also need to be done within the system. Life makes use of many open systems, that all do work, they are all around us."
all these revolves on systems theory which centers on input/output option which you analysed well here. More so, in nature vs nurture...whatever you give, you get either biologically through genes or enviromentally through society or peer groups/ family.
thanks as always sir for your educative post!
Self organizing systems.
why do scientists always say that religion clouds there views of evolution, creation and so on?
Im not a religious person or a scientific person Im a layman. but in my opinion, there are experiences that i have had, others have had and people of science cant explain said experiences. they have a theory, but no real proof.
so i just dont get how scientists just dismiss something that doesnt have 110% proof behind it, even if they seen it happen with there own eyes.
to me it doesnt really matter, life is great and things change, but ive always wondered why scientsts just hate on religion, whats the reasoning behind that?
In my experience, it seems that many religious people don't have enough faith in their own beliefs to listen to others' opinions and many scientists are too prideful to admit that they don't know all the answers. Put those two together and you get a recipe for argument, hate, and fear.
thats a really great and logical way to explain it. that totally makes sense now!
when it comes down to it, id say its ego based. not everyone has all the answers but they feel, pretend or think that they do, than comes the arguments, hate and fear as you put it
thanks!
It seems to me that if we question to understand and not destroy we still destroy all belief. For at some stage we have to realise that sincerity is a measure of honesty not truth. If we honestly question then we end up being honest but not truthful. Ignorance is not the best place to be but better than putting our faith in a belief, i.e. a thought.
i ... dont really understand what your saying. read above im a layman, this is like reading Swedish to me. its going over my head.
"if we question to understand we will destroy all belief" what? how would it destroy belief if we wanted to understand our beliefs in the first place?
and if we believe in our thots were ignorant?
sorry im not understanding what you mean here
The point of questioning anything is to understand. But the more we question deeply the more we realise that actually "the more we know the less we know".
My way of explaining this to myself by analogy. I live on a small island of knowledge. I can walk round the island in a day. I know it well. The shore line is where my knowledge stops and ignorance begins. As the island gets bigger - my understanding increases - the shoreline gets longer and it takes me more than a day to walk round. But the island is still an island in an ocean of ignorance. No matter how big the island gets it will still be a dot in an immense ocean.
So what I am saying is that to attack or defend beliefs is less important than realising that personally we do not know how or why the universe exists and that includes ourselves. The evidence for evolution is limited spatially and temporarily to one planet in a non-descript galaxy in the back of beyond.
Think of it this way. Evolution implies "better", more evolved. There is that word again. Or maybe more complex. But what is "better".
So not exactly a position for me to argue from. :)