How does /sci/ feel about nomogenisis?
>Berg is most well known for his evolutionary theory called nomogenesis, which was a type of orthogenesis. Berg's ideas were collected in his book Nomogenesis; or, Evolution
>Berg distanced himself from both Darwinism and Lamarckism. Instead he proposed the concept of directed mass mutations as the main mechanism for directing evolution.
>J B S Haldane called Nomogenesis "by far the best anti-Darwinian book of this century".
I don't get something. Bear in mind I don't know skite.
Evolution is random. E.g. favorable mutation are passed on while those that are not die off. But can a species naturally influence mutation besides members with favorable mutations breeding?
Here's a stupid example:
>want to survive underwater for longer periods of time
>larger lungs as a result
Are the genetics for larger lungs passed on or is it a mere adaptation for that specific member? Are genes in any way altered? How does evolution work in that case? It looks like an incredibly stupid question and I should feel bad but it's been nagging me forever.
You better start showing evidence of mechanisms that directionally influence genes based on external factors within one generation across members of a species, or else that theory remains a complete stillbirth and can't possibly compete with darwinian evolution.
It hurts my balls how /sci/ insults bio, and yet the lack of bio knowledge in this thread is laughable.
Evolution by natural selection is a statement of fact. It's a necessary statement of the universe. It doesn't have to apply to living organisms: things evolve/change over time due to natural processes. It's an axiom of causality.
Any mechanism which is involved in the origin of species, in the creation of new species of organisms and new populations of organisms, will be subjected to natural selection. Evolution by artificial selection is subject to natural selection just as much as natural selection is subject to natural selection (tautology).
So, it doesn't matter what Berg's hypothesis is, since it's still subject to natural selection. Even Lamarckism is subject to natural selection. Even if "exercising a characteristic" worked in improving that characteristic, and those characteristics were hereditable, they *still* would be subject to an overall natural selection.
You can't avoid evolution by natural selection. It's a statement of the universe more than it is a mechanism for the origin of species.
Nah, it doesn't work that way. You are born with a potential. Say, you are born with the potential of holding your breath longer than average, but too much smoking resulted in your ability of holding your breath being shorter than average. That doesn't matter for your offspring.
Same applies to intelligence. You're born with a high IQ, but you don't take any advantage of it. You remain ignorant/"stupid". Intelligence passes on to your offspring through genetics. Your offspring takes advantage of that IQ and becomes "intelligent"/wise, etc. etc.
Get my point?
While I know what you mean, it's still subject to natural selection.
That is, if the population changes because of the drift, the population is not going to successfully drift into something that makes it go extinct.
That is, the genetic drift of a lethal allele causing the extinction of a population is evidence of natural selection acting on genetic drift.
Your example is like brown eyes to blue eyes, but, like the above sample, is still subject to natural selection: in the case of brown to blue eyes, it's not selected against--it survives.
You should have simply corrected him and said that evolution is not "random". Mutation is "random". Acquiring characteristics may be "random". But the selection of those phenotypes isn't random--if something dies, it was "meant" to die. If something lives, it was "meant" to live. There are no accidents when it comes to something living or dying, even if we, primates, perceive something as accidental.
That would be incorrect. Natural Selection is the leading force for evolutionary changes. However, there are a number of other mechanisms involved that can have an impact. Genetic drift in itself isn't actually that powerful of a driving force because without the impact of some sort of event, disturbance, or challenge then this would would never be a factor. If you want a very basic evolutionary understanding try picking up BluePrints and giving it a read. I have a number of other books I have been forced to use but that is probably the best for someone who doesn't have intimate biology knowledge.
Evolution is non-random but undirected.
The process is not random, an event, challenge, or outside force impacts a population and this in turn results in a disturbance in gene frequencies for the selected pheno/geno trait. However, it is undirected as there is no clear goal or choice in mind here. It happens as a natural force. Evolution is one of those things you can't really talk about unless you have a very large base of knowledge and understanding involving biology, biochemistry, and a few other areas. This sort of talking is the equivalent of pop-sci bullshit and talking about warp engines.
>This sort of talking is the equivalent of pop-sci bullshit and talking about warp engines.
I like your style, and I'll forgive you if this sentence being directed toward me.
Speaking as a determinist, if something dies, it had an obligation to die, hence my quoting of the word "meant". Its death was unavoidable. You thinking that I was using "meant" as synonymous with "direction" is unfortunate.
Yes, Dan Dennett's perspective of "avoiders" and "evitability" is silly and superfluous.
Not the guy you asked the question to, but ask yourself this question:
Instead of finding a reason for the fish to lose its eyes, why don't you find a reason for the fish to *keep* its eyes.
It's not about the fish losing its eyes, but it's why the fish should keep its eyes. There's no reason for the fish to keep its eyes, so if a normally horrible mutation occurs which causes it to be blind...it's no big deal.
Perhaps the lack of development of eyes causes embryos of those fish to mature more quickly and to hatch a few days earlier. This advantage makes blind fish hatch earlier than seeing fish, and the blind fish eat many of the seeing fish eggs. Repeat this over a few generations.
Blind fish 1, seeing fish 0.
Likely due to fact that white people are mixing with other ethnic people that are lactose intolerant. The majority of the developed world no longer marry within their social classes either, which can be another contributing factor caused by globalization.
It's a cute example, but seeing and hearing are sensory tools, and we need those to understand our environment. You picked the worst senses to get rid of. A primate has different problems to overcome than a fish.
Sense of smell could be a better example, I guess. If the human brain began to expand into the sinus, it wouldn't hurt humans because we don't really use smell for much. Visual and auditory senses are much more important.
If the brain were to expand into the sinus of a dog, or a bear, animals dependent on their smell, it would be a different story.
This is all shit-talking, but humans losing eyesight wouldn't make them smarter, I'm almost sure. I don't see how losing access to data from the universe (the EM spectrum) would make you understand the universe better/increase your IQ. IQ is all about shape analysis and patterns, and if you can't see things, you don't have a reference frame for identifying patterns.
>Perhaps the lack of development of eyes causes embryos of those fish to mature more quickly and to hatch a few days earlier
It doesn't, compared to the non-cave variants who have eyes.
White people are lactose *tolerant*, as opposed to other races. This coincides with having dairy in their diet. But lactose tolerance was never required for survival, because dairy didn't form most of anyone's diet. So how white people got this trait, considering we can rule out Lamarckism, is unexplained.
>if something dies, it was "meant" to die. If something lives, it was "meant" to live.
Which one am I fellas?
I think it's from some Brazilian TV show. I do not believe she does porn.