ZAVibes

Evolutionary changes are supposed to take place gradually and randomly, under pressure from natural selection. But a team of Princeton scientists investigating a group of proteins that help cells burn energy stumbled across evidence that this is not how evolution works. In fact, their discovery could revolutionize the way we understand evolutionary processes. They have evidence that organisms actually have the ability to control their own evolution.

Let’s get a few possible misconceptions out of the way first. The Princeton group, composed of researchers Raj Chakrabarti, Herschel Rabitz, Stacey Springs and George McLendon, haven’t proven that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory. Nor are they claiming that DNA is making a set of conscious decisions about growing extra legs or wings (though that would admittedly be cool).

What they are saying is that evolution is not entirely random, as Darwin believed. The researchers were tinkering with a set of proteins forming the electron transport chain, a system that regulates energy use in cells. They discovered that the proteins were correcting any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations, constantly restoring the chain to working order. A mathematical analysis revealed that these proteins seem to make these minute corrections all the time, steering organisms toward evolutionary changes that make the creature fitter.

Said Chakrabarti:

The discovery answers an age-old question that has puzzled biologists since the time of Darwin: How can organisms be so exquisitely complex, if evolution is completely random, operating like a ‘blind watchmaker’? Our new theory extends Darwin’s model, demonstrating how organisms can subtly direct aspects of their own evolution to create order out of randomness.
Their work seems to confirm ideas held by Darwin’s colleague Alfred Wallace, who co-discovered the theory of evolution. Wallace believed that life forms undergoing natural selection could adjust their evolutionary course “exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident.” In other words: Wallace believed that organisms had a kind of evolutionary feedback control mechanism.

Added Rabitz:

What we have found is that certain kinds of biological structures exist that are able to steer the process of evolution toward improved fitness. The data just jumps off the page and implies we all have this wonderful piece of machinery inside that’s responding optimally to evolutionary pressure.
The researchers put together a paper recently published in Physical Review Letters, which suggests that control theory could help explain evolution. This is likely to spark a lot of debate. But Chakrabarti says their ideas fit neatly within theories of evolution:

Biological change is always driven by random mutation and selection, but at certain pivotal junctures in evolutionary history, such random processes can create structures capable of steering subsequent evolution toward greater sophistication and complexity.
In other words, organisms are evolving ways to evolve better.

Here’s more info at News At Princeton

This article, posted by Michael Shermer back in February 2002, really makes a few good points regarding Evolutionary Theory, Science, our public schooling systems, etc:

In one of the most existentially penetrating statements ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that “the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so”; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that “human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process”; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that “human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.” in a forced binary choice between the “theory of creationism” and the “theory of evolution,” 57 percent chose creationism against only 33 percent for evolution (10 percent said that they were “unsure”). One explanation for these findings can be seen in additional results showing that just 34 percent considered themselves to be “very informed” about evolution.

Although such findings are disturbing, truth in science is not determined democratically. It does not matter what percentage of the public believes a theory. It must stand or fall on the evidence, and there are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution. The preponderance of evidence from numerous converging lines of inquiry (geology, paleontology, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, genetics,
biogeography, and so on) points to the same conclusion — evolution is real. The 19th-century philosopher of science William Whewell called this process of independent lines of inquiry converging together to a conclusion a “consilience of inductions.” I call it a “convergence of evidence.” Whatever you call it, it is how historical events are proved.

The reason we are experiencing this peculiarly American phenomenon of evolution denial (the doppelgänger of Holocaust denial, using the same techniques of rhetoric and debate) is that a small but vocal minority of religious fundamentalists misread the theory of evolution as a challenge to their deeply held religious convictions. Given this misunderstanding, their response is to attack the theory. It is no coincidence that most evolution deniers are Christians who believe that if God did not personally create life, then they have no basis for belief, morality and the meaning of life. Clearly for some, much is at stake in the findings of science.

Because the Constitution prohibits public schools from promoting any brand of religion, this has led to the oxymoronic movement known as “creation science” or, in its more recent incarnation, “intelligent design” (ID). ID (aka God) miraculously intervenes just in the places where science has yet to offer a comprehensive explanation for a particular phenomenon. (ID used to control the weather, but now that we understand it, He has moved on to more difficult problems, such as the origins of DNA and cellular life. Once these problems are mastered, then ID will no doubt find even more intractable conundrums.) Thus, IDers would have us teach children nonthreatening theories of science, but when it comes to the origins of life and certain aspects of evolution, children are to learn that “ID did it.” I fail to see how this is science — or what, exactly, IDers hope will be taught in these public schools. “ID did it” makes for a rather short semester.

To counter the nefarious influence of the ID creationists, we need to employ a proactive strategy of science education and evolution explanation. It is not enough to argue that creationism is wrong; we must also show that evolution is right. The theory’s founder, Charles Darwin, knew this when he reflected: “It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follows from the advance of science.”

When most people think of torturers, stalkers, robbers, rapists, and murderers, they imagine crazed drooling monsters with maniacal Charles Manson-like eyes. The calm normal-looking image starring back at you from the bathroom mirror reflects a truer representation. The dangerous idea is that all of us contain within our large brains adaptations whose functions are to commit despicable atrocities against our fellow humans — atrocities most would label evil.

The unfortunate fact is that killing has proved to be an effective solution to an array of adaptive problems in the ruthless evolutionary games of survival and reproductive competition: Preventing injury, rape, or death; protecting one’s children; eliminating a crucial antagonist; acquiring a rival’s resources; securing sexual access to a competitor’s mate; preventing an interloper from appropriating one’s own mate; and protecting vital resources needed for reproduction.

The idea that evil has evolved is dangerous on several counts. If our brains contain psychological circuits that can trigger murder, genocide, and other forms of malevolence, then perhaps we can’t hold those who commit carnage responsible: “It’s not my client’s fault, your honor, his evolved homicide adaptations made him do it.” Understanding causality, however, does not exonerate murderers, whether the tributaries trace back to human evolution history or to modern exposure to alcoholic mothers, violent fathers, or the ills of bullying, poverty, drugs, or computer games. It would be dangerous if the theory of the evolved murderous mind were misused to let killers free.

The evolution of evil is dangerous for a more disconcerting reason. We like to believe that evil can be objectively located in a particular set of evil deeds, or within the subset people who perpetrate horrors on others, regardless of the perspective of the perpetrator or victim. That is not the case. The perspective of the perpetrator and victim differ profoundly. Many view killing a member of one’s in-group, for example, to be evil, but take a different view of killing those in the out-group. Some people point to the biblical commandment “thou shalt not kill” as an absolute. Closer biblical inspection reveals that this injunction applied only to murder within one’s group.

Conflict with terrorists provides a modern example. Osama bin Laden declared: “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.” What is evil from the perspective of an American who is a potential victim is an act of responsibility and higher moral good from the terrorist’s perspective. Similarly, when President Bush identified an “axis of evil,” he rendered it moral for Americans to kill those falling under that axis — a judgment undoubtedly considered evil by those whose lives have become imperiled.

At a rough approximation, we view as evil people who inflict massive evolutionary fitness costs on us, our families, or our allies. No one summarized these fitness costs better than the feared conqueror Genghis Khan (1167-1227): “The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see their near and dear bathed in tears, to ride their horses and sleep on the bellies of their wives and daughters.”

We can be sure that the families of the victims of Genghis Khan saw him as evil. We can be just as sure that his many sons, whose harems he filled with women of the conquered groups, saw him as a venerated benefactor. In modern times, we react with horror at Mr. Khan describing the deep psychological satisfaction he gained from inflicting fitness costs on victims while purloining fitness fruits for himself. But it is sobering to realize that perhaps half a percent of the world’s population today are descendants of Genghis Khan.

On reflection, the dangerous idea may not be that murder historically has been advantageous to the reproductive success of killers; nor that we all house homicidal circuits within our brains; nor even that all of us are lineal descendants of ancestors who murdered. The danger comes from people who refuse to recognize that there are dark sides of human nature that cannot be wished away by attributing them to the modern ills of culture, poverty, pathology, or exposure to media violence. The danger comes from failing to gaze into the mirror and come to grips the capacity for evil in all of us.

David Buss

One fundamental scientific and philosophical problem is determining how life began on earth as well as the probability of such a thing happening. Those who favor a purposeful universe point to the existence of life as evidence for said purpose-they claim that the odds of life just happening are far too long to explain otherwise. Those who favor that life just happened need to provide an account of how it just happened and typically want to discuss the probability of the event.

In 1970 Jacques Monod (a biologist and winner of a Nobel prize) wrote “Man at last knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of which he emerged only by chance.” This quote nicely expressed the dominant scientific view of the time: the emergence of life on earth was 1) the result of chance and 2) a matter of such amazingly low probability that it most likely never occurred elsewhere. Of course, even if the probability of life were extremely low, it would still be a hasty inference to conclude what Monod concluded. It is, after all, a big universe.

While this view still enjoys some popularity, some scientists have started accepting the view expressed by Christian de Duve (a biochemist) who calls life a “cosmic imperative” and asserts that it should appear on any earth like world. Given that he has a sample of one (earth) to work with, his assertion is amazingly bold. This hypothesis is sometimes called “biological determinism” (not to be confused with the determinism in the free will debate, of course).

Finding life on another world, such as Mars, or even finding signs that life appeared multiple times on one world (such as earth) would help support the biological determinism hypothesis. Of course, it would require finding multiple worlds like earth with life on them to make accepting the hypothesis reasonabl. After all, finding a few worlds with life in a vast universe would be consistent with the claim that life arises by pure chance and at a very low probability.

As a philosopher, I find the debate quite interesting. After all, it is replaying debates that occurred centuries ago in philosophy regarding the nature of reality. It will be interesting to see the proposed mechanism for biological determinism. Naturally, it does seem to stray into the area of classic, Aristotelian style teleology. Of course, I think humans find that irresistible. For example, even those devoted to evolution find it almost impossible to avoid straying into talk of purpose

Originally posted by Michael LaBossiere