A new discovery about evolution

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

A single copying mistake resulted in complex organisms evolving....according to a recent report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/11/startling-new-discovery-600-million-years-ago-a-single-biological-mistake-changed-everything/

*****************

Incredibly, in the world of evolutionary biology, all it took was one tiny tweak, one gene, and complex life as we know it was born.

..... if the flaw is wrong in exactly the right way, the incredible can happen: disease resistance, sharper eyesight, swifter feet, big brains, better beaks for Darwin’s finches.

In a paper published in the open-access journal eLife this week, researchers say they have pinpointed what may well be one of evolution’s greatest copy mess-ups yet: the mutation that allowed our ancient protozoa predecessors to evolve into complex, multi-cellular organisms. Thanks to this mutation — which was not solely responsible for the leap out of single-cellular life, but without which you, your dog and every creature large enough to be seen without a microscope might not be around — cells were able to communicate with one another and work together.

“It was a shock,” co-author Ken Prehoda, a biochemist at the University of Oregon, told The Washington Post. “If you asked anyone on our team if they thought one mutation was going to be responsible for this, they would have said it doesn’t seem possible.”

“We were expecting many genes to be involved, working together in certain ways, because [the jump to multi-cellularity] seems like a really difficult thing to do,” he said.

But it turned out that only one was needed: A single mutation that repurposed a certain type of protein.

******************

Interesting.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Outrider]

I'm curious as to why they characterise it as a 'mistake'. That sort of implies that perfect replication of genetic sequences was the 'intention'...

O.

[Bubbles]

I'm curious as to why they characterise it as a 'mistake'. That sort of implies that perfect replication of genetic sequences was the 'intention'...

O.

Mistake as in a random mutation perhaps.

[Red Giant]

I'm curious as to why they characterise it as a 'mistake'. That sort of implies that perfect replication of genetic sequences was the 'intention'...

So it's like, the faulty copying process allowed the copying process itself to evolve and get better, but if it had got better still, evolution would have ground to a halt right there.

[Bubbles]

So it's like, the faulty copying process allowed the copying process itself to evolve and get better, but if it had got better still, evolution would have ground to a halt right there.

Which in some ways it has for animals that are totally successful in their environment.

I'm thinking of crocodiles and sharks, which have pretty much stood still, over time.

[Leonard James]

If an organism is perfectly adapted for living and reproducing in its current environment, then it can't evolve further until the environment changes in some way.

The environment will inevitably change some time, and it will evolve further. That is why the ability to mutate (copy incorrectly) is essential for every species ... otherwise it becomes extinct.

[Sriram]

IMO, a single 'mistake' leading to such major changes is indicative of intervention of some kind.  And I am sure there are many more such 'mistakes' at various points leading to human emergence and the present situation.

[Leonard James]

IMO, a single 'mistake' leading to such major changes is indicative of intervention of some kind.

A single mistake cannot produce major changes ... it can only pave the way for more changes to take place which sum up into a major change.

 

And I am sure there are many more such mistakes at various points leading to human emergence and the present situation.

Exactly! A series of minor mistakes is the only thing that can produce a major change.

[Sriram]

A single mistake cannot produce major changes ... it can only pave the way for more changes to take place which sum up into a major change.

 
Exactly! A series of minor mistakes is the only thing that can produce a major change.

All the more reason to believe that there is intention behind it.  What scientists write off as 'mistakes' is what we can also view as tweaking or 'fine tuning'.... as the Anthropic Principle puts it.   It all adds up nicely.

The usual impression that... if certain chemicals are left alone long enough 'complex life' and humans will automatically evolve, is clearly wrong.  Certain 'mistakes' or 'fine tuning' is needed every now and then to keep it on course.   Consciousness and Intelligence are needed for that to happen.

We must also remember that if this mistake or  'tweaking' happens in only one individual unicellular organism, it would not be enough for life to change so dramatically on the planet as a whole. It has to happen simultaneously in millions of such organisms everywhere for multicellular life to emerge around the world.

[Leonard James]

We must also remember that if this mistake or  'tweaking' happens in only one individual unicellular organism, it would not be enough for life to change so dramatically on the planet as a whole. It has to happen simultaneously in millions of such organisms everywhere for multicellular life to emerge around the world.

Another clear misunderstanding of evolution. A single advantageous mistake in one simple organism can't change any other organism on the planet. But it can continue reproducing copies of itself and thus finally supplant its competitors. But that takes a long time, which is why no drastic change is possible in one generation.

[Udayana]

Yes, humans were certainly a mistake!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evolution is in fact Roman Catholic but flirted with Rastafarianism for a while.

[Sriram]

Another clear misunderstanding of evolution. A single advantageous mistake in one simple organism can't change any other organism on the planet. But it can continue reproducing copies of itself and thus finally supplant its competitors. But that takes a long time, which is why no drastic change is possible in one generation.

That's what you might believe based on your current understanding of how evolution works. But is there any proof that the 'mistake' happened only in one individual unicellular organism and from there it spread world over? Similarly with all the other millions of 'mistakes' along the way!?

In both cases, the idea of 'fine tuning' is very relevant.  There is no getting away from that.

[Outrider]

That's what you might believe based on your current understanding of how evolution works. But is there any proof that the 'mistake' happened only in one individual unicellular organism and from there it spread world over?

It matches the distribution models for other genetic variation - it's not impossible that this, like any variation, may have emerged spontaneously in different locations, it's just unlikely that random variation led to the same place twice.

In both cases, the idea of 'fine tuning' is very relevant.  There is no getting away from that.

The idea of 'fine tuning' is always relevant with evolution, because it's easy to mistakenly attribute some sort of intention to the process and presume that ending here is so colossally unlikely that it must have been intentional. That logical fallacy, of course, presumes that where we are was 'the point' - every possible end-point for the process is equally (un)likely, it's only our cognitive bias that presumes any importance to this particular outcome.

O.

[Sriram]

It matches the distribution models for other genetic variation - it's not impossible that this, like any variation, may have emerged spontaneously in different locations, it's just unlikely that random variation led to the same place twice.

The idea of 'fine tuning' is always relevant with evolution, because it's easy to mistakenly attribute some sort of intention to the process and presume that ending here is so colossally unlikely that it must have been intentional. That logical fallacy, of course, presumes that where we are was 'the point' - every possible end-point for the process is equally (un)likely, it's only our cognitive bias that presumes any importance to this particular outcome.

O.

My point was that...even if the very same 'mistake' happened in just two different organisms (let alone many more) at broadly the same time, it still cannot be a 'random variation'.

[Leonard James]

That's what you might believe based on your current understanding of how evolution works. But is there any proof that the 'mistake' happened only in one individual unicellular organism and from there it spread world over? Similarly with all the other millions of 'mistakes' along the way!?

Of course there's no proof that such didn't happen ... and very likely it did. What difference does that make?

In both cases, the idea of 'fine tuning' is very relevant.  There is no getting away from that.

"Fine tuning" is a totally misleading expression because it give the impression that something tunes the universe, and there is zero evidence for that.

When an enormous number of elements are scattered far and wide in a void, they will gather into groups and react to one another and their surroundings. Most of the groups won't form in such a way as to engender life, but when the number is large enough it is probable that one or more will.

[Outrider]

My point was that...even if the very same 'mistake' happened in just two different organisms (let alone many more) at broadly the same time, it still cannot be a 'random variation'.

It could, it's just incredibly unlikely. It's effectively random whether a tossed coin comes up heads or tails, but just because it's come up heads twice in a row here doesn't mean it's impossible that it happen somewhere else. The chances of a coin toss, at 50-50, are relatively high, so it's not that unlikely - the chance of a specific random mutation are considerably lower, so the chances of it happening twice are incredibly lower. The point of probability, though, is that no matter how close to practically impossible any given incident gets, it's never going to be actually impossible for it to happen twice if it's possible for it to happen once.

O.

[Sriram]

Of course there's no proof that such didn't happen ... and very likely it did. What difference does that make?

"Fine tuning" is a totally misleading expression because it give the impression that something tunes the universe, and there is zero evidence for that.

When an enormous number of elements are scattered far and wide in a void, they will gather into groups and react to one another and their surroundings. Most of the groups won't form in such a way as to engender life, but when the number is large enough it is probable that one or more will.

Leonard,

You say..'"Fine tuning" is a totally misleading expression because it give the impression that something tunes the universe, and there is zero evidence for that.'

'Fine tuning' IS the evidence, for God's sake!!

What you say is like claiming...'galaxies are moving apart at an increased rate, so something must be pushing them apart...but there is zero evidence for that something...so the galaxies are probably moving apart due to random factors'.   The fact that they are moving apart IS the evidence for this something (Dark Energy). 

[jeremyp]

A single mistake cannot produce major changes

Yes it can. The problem in evolutionary terms is that mutations producing large changes will almost inevitably produce non viable organisms that don't survive to reproduce.

[Outrider]

You say..'"Fine tuning" is a totally misleading expression because it give the impression that something tunes the universe, and there is zero evidence for that.'

'Fine tuning' IS the evidence, for God's sake!!

No, fine tuning is a presumption - you're presuming in the idea that the universe is fine-tuned that we were an intended outcome. There is no more evidence that we were a deliberate intention than there is for the universe being 'fine-tuned' for us. The universe may well just be, and we are the life that has emerged and adapted to this universe.

O.

[Sriram]

It could, it's just incredibly unlikely. It's effectively random whether a tossed coin comes up heads or tails, but just because it's come up heads twice in a row here doesn't mean it's impossible that it happen somewhere else. The chances of a coin toss, at 50-50, are relatively high, so it's not that unlikely - the chance of a specific random mutation are considerably lower, so the chances of it happening twice are incredibly lower. The point of probability, though, is that no matter how close to practically impossible any given incident gets, it's never going to be actually impossible for it to happen twice if it's possible for it to happen once.

O.

Outrider,

First of all, the coin has only two possibilities. Random variations in DNA on the other hand have perhaps infinite possibilities.  Has anyone determined exactly how many variations are possible? I doubt it.

Given this situation, if even two individual unicellular organisms have exactly the same variation....it cannot be random. It's in fact possible that perhaps millions of individual unicellular organisms developed the very same variation leading to multicellular organisms developing the way they did.

And this of course, goes much further since the change from unicellular to multicellular is just the first step. Heaven knows how many more such 'mistakes' are required to lead to such diversity and complexity as we see today.  It would be impossible to determine that.

The dice is obviously loaded...and DNA is clearly programmed to develop the way it did.




 

[Leonard James]

Leonard,

You say..'"Fine tuning" is a totally misleading expression because it give the impression that something tunes the universe, and there is zero evidence for that.'

'Fine tuning' IS the evidence, for God's sake!!

But it isn't fine tuning! It just happens that one combination of constants is suitable for life to develop. ONE combination out of trillions of random combinations.

[Outrider]

First of all, the coin has only two possibilities. Random variations in DNA on the other hand have perhaps infinite possibilities.  Has anyone determined exactly how many variations are possible? I doubt it.

Given this situation, if even two individual unicellular organisms have exactly the same variation....it cannot be random. It's in fact possible that perhaps millions of individual unicellular organisms developed the very same variation leading to multicellular organisms developing the way they did.

Yes, it can be random. That's the nature of probability, it's entirely possible for extremely unlikely things to happen, and for them to happen twice.

And this of course, goes much further since the change from unicellular to multicellular is just the first step. Heaven knows how many more such 'mistakes' are required to lead to such diversity and complexity as we see today.  It would be impossible to determine that.

The dice is obviously loaded...and DNA is clearly programmed to develop the way it did.

No, it isn't 'clearly' programmed at all.

It's possible that it was programmed, but seeing as this is about probability: in order for it to be programmed, the programmer would have had to know exactly what environment each example of each genetic marker was going to be in at the point of reproduction. If you think that the prospect of two examples of a random mutation occuring in the same way was unlikely, how unlikely is that programmer?

O.

[Sriram]

But it isn't fine tuning! It just happens that one combination of constants is suitable for life to develop. ONE combination out of trillions of random combinations.

Leonard,

Yes...and when that ONE combination out of a trillion possibilities actually happens in several individual organisms..... and when similar ONE IN A TRILLION combinations happen repeatedly again and again a million times leading to increased complexity....it is obviously a case of FINE TUNING!

Now...how that fine tuning happens is a different discussion. I wish people could actually get to that stage! 

[Sriram]

Yes, it can be random. That's the nature of probability, it's entirely possible for extremely unlikely things to happen, and for them to happen twice.

No, it isn't 'clearly' programmed at all.

It's possible that it was programmed, but seeing as this is about probability: in order for it to be programmed, the programmer would have had to know exactly what environment each example of each genetic marker was going to be in at the point of reproduction. If you think that the prospect of two examples of a random mutation occuring in the same way was unlikely, how unlikely is that programmer?

O.

Outrider,

What do you mean... 'it can be random.....that's the nature of probability'...when the probability is almost NIL and it happens repeatedly again and again?!

When you refer to a programmer...maybe you are thinking of a Christian God. I am not.

How the fine tuning and programming happens is what we need to find out...if we ever get to that in the first place. 

The idea of a common biofield or some other kind of connection is what I discussed in the thread on Interconnection.

For a start, questioning neo-darwinism and reconsidering Lamarckism in the light of findings in epigenetics...should be the way forward.