nodalpoint.org - whose monster is it? - Comments

I would point out that evolut

chris — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:12:16 -0400

I would point out that evolution is NOT a smooth motion from less to more 'evolved'. Put crudely, it states that stuff happens over (geological) time, (largely) in response to external factors. Although it's tempting to assume that things get better/more complex/more refined over time, this is not necessarily true. Things change: attributing subjective values like "good" or "better" is a (natural) human fallacy, as is assuming that evolution has stopped. It's still going, and will continue for the forseeable (geological) future.

So the fact is that you can't cause something to devolve. Evolution isn't a linear process. Here's a hand-wavy thought experiment (bear with me here, and assume we could actually do all this).

Let's assume that an external factor F causes selection for a particular trait in an organism. If you then applied the opposite of F, you probably wouldn't reverse the trait (ie cause what I assume you mean by devolution); instead, you'd modify it in some unpredictable way.

One of the paradoxical things about evolutionary theory is the concept of contingent history: once something has happened, you can point out its causes; but you would not have been able to predict that outcome before it happened, because (i) it is impossible to know what the acting causes are or how they change over time, and (ii) even if you did, the element of chance (which after all helps generate diversity) means you couldn't predict the outcome.

more thanks!

Will Von Wizzlepig — Mon, 02 May 2005 15:06:21 -0400

Wow, awesome. Thank you. I will look into that.

I see now that the experiment had different intentions. Craig Venter's work seems more like what I am looking to find out about. Can we show that a certain creature can be caused to devolve? Can we show the theory of evolution in real time?

With the 'alive' issue I am on the same page with you- I'm here for several reasons- It's interesting, I want to know, but moreover, I want to be able to show people what I have found and make it meaningful, and I am not one to leave out footnotes and endnotes and call it a success- if I have to include 'alive' in the debate because some contend its application, I will lose some of my audience- mostly, those who are eager to throw it out to begin with.

Thanks again.

-WVW

Complexity

chris — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 21:49:49 -0400

I think you've got the experiment the wrong way round. Although Speigelman started with a virus, the point was to try and reverse-engineer abiogenesis - the process where (relatively) simple chemical entities eventually come together to form a replicator, such as an RNA strand. Eigen then attacked the problem directly, simulating a 'primordial soup' environment complete with bolts of lightning to set things going [a model now widely questioned, I believe - Neil?].

The overall aim was to see if you could go from 'stuff' to 'stuff that copies itself' - abiogenesis. The simplest self-replicating entities we know of today - viruses, prions, other bits and pieces - are many times more complex than these (largely hypothetical) progenitors. Truly 'living' things, such as bacteria, are in turn orders of magnitude more complex than even pretty sophisticated viruses with protein coats. So the experiment to generate a bacterium from 'stuff' is probably flawed, because that's probably not how it happened.

What people are trying to do is to see what the simplest possible bacterium is - Craig Venter has been trying for years to induce one of the smallest ones, a Mycobacterium, to shed as much of its DNA as possible. The overall aim is to see how simple a cell (which most reasonable people would agree is alive) can be. Although it's a very artificial setup, it would be interesting to see the results.

I'll save up the rant about the human tendency to divide everything into two neat categories (alive/non-alive) for another time :-)

me again

Will Von Wizzlepig — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:13:44 -0400

Thanks again for the help, but now I have another question and I did not find the answer in the archives.

Spiegelman's experiment shows that a virus can be goaded into devolving to nearly useless form (from 4500 nucleotides to 220.)

It seems a given that the 'aliveness' of viruses is questionable.

Can't a similar experiment from be performed using some other microscopic entity which is actually considered 'alive'? Has it been tried? If not, what prevents it?

Thanks again,

WVW

Thanks!

Will Von Wizzlepig — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:06:48 -0400

I will check it out, now that I know what to look for it should be easy. Thanks a lot!

-WVW

try talk.origins

Neil — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:56:00 -0400

All your evolutionary questions are answered at the Talk.Origins archive. I believe the experiment that you refer to is "Spiegelman's monster" and involved viruses; try those search terms at the Talk.origins search page or on Google.

whose monster is it?

Will Von Wizzlepig — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:16:48 -0400

Hello World.

I Have a question for the fine people here, and I am a rank amateur, so please excuse my lack of proper vocabulary.

I've been trying to find the whole story on a case which I read about several years ago- I think it was possibly in John L. Casti's "Paradigms Lost", or possibly Stephen Pinker's "The Language Instinct".

In any case, the example refers to a "famous experiment" which is often referred to as "[so-and-so's] Monster", in which, a microorganism is placed in an extremely hospitible environment and allowed to thrive there with no enemies or inhibition. After many generations of reproduction in this safe environment, the organism was found to have a markedly less-complex genetic structure.