Evolution and instincts

[one_raven]

I know next to nothing about evolution.
If I am totally wrong here, keep in mind that I am not trying to challenge current notions of science, I just don't know and am curious to learn.

I keep hearing that evolution of a species occurs through natural selection which is entirely random.

A genetic malfunction of sorts causes an abnormal gene which, in turn, causes an abnormal trait in a member of a species which, if it proves beneficial to survival, propagates through the species through the offspring of the "deformed" members.

Is that basically correct?

The question this leaves me with is, "Where do instincts come into play?"

Instincts, as I understand the idea, are bits of knowledge that are inherited from the parents, right?

"Fly south in the winter."
"Fly in a 'V' formation to save energy."
"Store fat to live on and hibernate through the winter."
"Seek food from mother's breast."
etc...
It seems unlikely that the first members of a species know what they need to survive.
It seems more likely that learned behavior is passed down through the generations and become "hard-wired" in the brain at birth over time.

What is the geneticist's (is that a word?) point of view on instincs?

Do instincts evolve?
Does more and more information get hard wired into an infant brain as the neural pathwats become more and more ingrained in the parents' brians?

If that is the case, then doesn't evolution have a somewhat intelligent mechanism behind it?

If it isn't the case, how do Alaskan birds know the way to Hawaii?

Expanding further on the idea IF instincts do evolve let me pose a hypothetical situation for you...

Imagine all humans adopted a simple unchanging fully formed language.
After generations upon generations learned this language that never evolved, would babies eventually be born speaking at least a minimal amount of that common tongue?

It seems that some animals are born (maybe it is just my over-active imagination at work) already capable of communicating with the rest of the animal in their species.
Could this be a sign of evolving instincts?


*edited to correct the plethora of typos*

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I'm on the same page as you one raven, I don't know much about evolution when it comes to genetics.
In laymans or "dr lou natic's" terms, instincts are the species' "memory". They "remember" what works and what doesn't work is forgotten because the bad worker dies before breeding.

I don't know the scientific explanation for how this knowledge is passed on.
I don't know how to explain instincts with genetics and I'm glad you thought of this interesting topic. I can't wait for the explanation from our competent comrades

Instincts are a truely remarkable aspect of life on earth. The behaviours some animals display are nothing short of breathtaking.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Yes instinct evolves... I soooo advice you all read the book "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins! Basically it explains how are genes controls us emotionally and consciously. I'll get back to you on a better explanation but right now I have a research project to present.

Anyways instinct is needed in all living things with a brain or simple neural system. Instincts such as the urge to @#$%, the urge to stay alive, greed and banding are all very vital to insuring genetic survival of the individual and the gene (Do not ever say “survival of the species”, that dogma is now consider false) emotions are also something that has evolved into us for survival means as well.

 

[SwedishFish]

Originally posted by one_raven

I keep hearing that evolution of a species occurs through natural selection which is entirely random.

A genetic malfunction of sorts causes an abnormal gene which, in turn, causes an abnormal trait in a member of a species which, if it proves beneficial to survival, propagates through the species through the offspring of the "deformed" members.

it's a good question but before beginning to answer it you should polish up your understanding of evolution. natural selection is the mode of selecting traits, not the creation of new ones so it's not the random part. there is a normal rate of mutation (1x10^-5 - 1x10^-6) in the genetic code. this is random, i think. it's not a malfunction at all...it's supposed to happen. it doesn't necessarily make abnormal genes and the result is not deformed individuals. the change may be entirely benign so that it is not noticed. it is only one gene afterall. any system in the body takes a myriad of complex gene interactions.

you'll also have to understand gene function within the body to see how it affects behavior. when you break it down, a gene simply codes for a protein so it seems far fetched that it has anything to do with behavior. you have to remember that there is not one gene that says "fly south for the winter". instincts are directed by a combination of the physical body structure and wiring of neurons and a bunch of other stuff, not to mention the tons of enzymes directing all the body processes. there are hundreds of genes directing any given action. small mutations in any of them may not cause any change but after a while they add up.

 

[Robert Jameson]

random or non-random

One raven

>>> I keep hearing that evolution of a species occurs through natural selection which is entirely random. <<<

“Random” or “non-random”? It is enough to drive the student of evolutionary theory crazy. Most Darwinists would take issue with your above statement and say that natural selection is non-random. The argument being that the species that survive to pass on their genetic endowment to the next generation is not the flip of the coin but the giraffe with the longest neck or the bird with the pointiest beak etc.

The difficulty with random and non-random comes with the assortment of nucleotides in DNA that codes for genes. Or in other words, was it blind coin flips that designed the long neck of the giraffe or was there something else driving it. According to Darwinists it was blind coin flips. Or to put it another way; the design of complex body parts is “random”.

Darwinists argue that the design of complex body parts comes about because of random mutation of DNA. Most mutations however are deleterious but it is argued that some are beneficial and over the eons there have been enough beneficial mutations to drive the design of greater complexity. Richard Dawkins (in The Blind Watchmaker page 124) acknowledges that the background mutation rate is one in a billion. And with most mutations being deleterious it is thought by many that there would never be enough time for living creatures to evolve the features they need to survive a rapidly changing environment.

And there is another problem for this line of argument. The mutation of DNA is not random. E.J.Steele, R.A.Lindley and R.V.Blandon in “Lamarck’s Signature” (page 138) point out that the somatic mutation rate in rearranged antibody variable region genes, V(D)Js, will increase during an immune response. When the antibody V-region is exposed to an antigen the selected B cells mutate its V(D)J genes at a rate of 1/1,000 to 1/10,000 bases per replication event. This is about a million times higher than the normal mutation rate of germline transmitted genes. In “The Blind Watchmaker” (page 312) Dawkins refers to a number of instances where it is known that mutations are not random but insists that in “adaptive advantage” mutations are “random”. This is saying that there is something at work in our immune system that can find antibodies (in just a few hours) for diseases that have never existed before but it is blind luck that drives the design of greater complexity.

These issues are discussed in greater length in Chapters 12 and 13 of my ebook “God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen” which can be downloaded free at www.e-publishingaustralia.com

Robert Jameson

 

[ElectricFetus]

ho ho you must be one of those theologians I have to gun it out with on theology forums (I spend my time there defending evolution) Now your attacking us on the home front, how brave!

Let me start the artillery counter attack:

If you want to say that some god is changing a segment of DNA rather then just some random attack of radiation, mutagen, virus or bad luck go right ahead: there no evidence against that idea and I don’t think there ever will be… then again there is no evidence for it. Because science cannot prove or disprove the existence and effects of god(s) the question is totally open and free to ones beliefs. The existence of evolution on the other hand is not: it is proven repeatedly and more factual then Newton’s laws! So you can say there is a god but you cannot say that life did not breed from each other.

Yes most mutations are deleterious but what most AIG (I shelt not say the name in full because it is blasphemy!) do not take into account that reproduction is not a linear process and deleterious mutations do not build up. What I means is that there is not one progeny after the other in a linear blood line but many progeny with many different genetic survivability ( branching blood line), if one or many of those progeny suffer from a deleterious mutation then they will die but it will not effect the whole species because there were others born without it. In fact the survivability rate in nature for any newborn animals is very low usually below 50%. This is how deleterious mutations get weeded out constantly yet species still survive. Also there are many beneficial mutations and not all (not even most) mutations are “lost of information” as most AIG like to claim.

The way the immune system evolves is not Darwinian. The immune system intentionally recombines immunity factor genes to create new antibodies. This process is actually very well known. These recombinations are not inheritable from one generation to the next (unless you talking about the B cells population in a person’s body).

 

[Robert Jameson]

WellCookedFetur

>>> you must be one of those theologians I have to gun it out with on theology forums <<<

I am an amateur scientist with little interest in theology. I do however believe that something must have kicked started it all and that is why I have God in the title of my book. (This may have been a mistake but many recognised scientists have done the same; i.e. Paul Davies “The Mind of God”, Leon Lederman “The God Particle” and many others). I find it irritating in the extreme that protagonists on both sides of the “creationist” debate become wedded to illogical and outdated concepts.

>>> Because science cannot prove or disprove the existence and effects of god(s) the question is totally open and free to ones beliefs. The existence of evolution on the other hand is not: it is proven repeatedly and more factual then Newton’s laws! <<<

This is obviously true but it does not address the question of what kick started it all? Before natural selection could drive the evolution of species there had to be living creatures with variation. There also had to be matter, energy, a universe and the laws that hold it all together. Some might argue that natural selection might also have been responsible for this but it is a little difficult to believe that coin flips could have created life and the universe if you do not have a coin or the energy to flip it?

>>> In fact the survivability rate in nature for any newborn animals is very low usually below 50%. This is how deleterious mutations get weeded out constantly yet species still survive. <<<

Again I agree with this but it does not address the issue. Even if I concede that the universe and life came into existence by some lucky accident then I need to know how, or why, living creatures evolved greater complexity. First the why. Single cell organisms are by far the best adapted to all environments and if survival of the fittest were driving evolution no species would have evolved beyond this point. 99.9% of all species that have evolved past the single cell organism have gone extinct so designing greater complexity has always been a disastrous survival strategy. But back to your point. I agree that deleterious mutations would not necessarily be a problem for the species as a whole but the evolution of greater complexity requires that species adapt to an ever changing environment. This means that the genetic codes for new genes need to be found. And according to Darwinism this needs to be a random process. The probability of randomly hitting on the sequence to code for a simple protein is one chance in 10(-130); that is one followed by 130 zeros. With a background mutation rate of one in a billion there would never be enough time?

>>> The way the immune system evolves is not Darwinian. The immune system intentionally recombines immunity factor genes to create new antibodies. This process is actually very well known. <<<

Is it reasonable to ask how the immune system manages to find the genetic code (sometimes within hours) to fight invading antigens that have never existed previously? And if there is this mysterious force at work that can drive the evolution of the immune system then why should we believe that it does not also drive the evolution of species; especially when Blind Freddie can tell you that coding for new genes by way of a random process is a statistical impossibility.

The following quote is from page 10 of “Lamarck’s Signature” by Steele, Edward J.; Lindley, Robyn A. and Blanden, Robert V. -:

“Changed circumstances in the environment (e.g. food availability, new predators) could lead to changed habits and somatic changes in body structure and physiology. New immunological challenges could lead to new antibody genes in B lymphocytes. Over time, such changes could be integrated in the germline DNA. This would contribute to a new, enriched repertoire of hereditary variations upon which natural selection then acts to sort out the 'fittest for survival' and propagation of the line.”

Steele, Edward J.; Lindley, Robyn A. and Blanden, Robert V. Lamark's Signature, How retro genes are changing Darwin's natural selection paradigm. Allen & Unwin, Australia. 1998.

See also Chapter 12 of my ebook “God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen” which can be downloaded free from e-publishingaustralia.com

 

[ElectricFetus]

Some might argue that natural selection might also have been responsible for this but it is a little difficult to believe that coin flips could have created life and the universe if you do not have a coin or the energy to flip it?

Some believe that its all random luck other do not... so far there is no real evidence either way and to believe either one is ok by my book.

Again I agree with this but it does not address the issue. Even if I concede that the universe and life came into existence by some lucky accident then I need to know how, or why, living creatures evolved greater complexity. First the why. Single cell organisms are by far the best adapted to all environments and if survival of the fittest were driving evolution no species would have evolved beyond this point. 99.9% of all species that have evolved past the single cell organism have gone extinct so designing greater complexity has always been a disastrous survival strategy.

Actually multi-cell organisms make there own ecological niche for which is there evolutionary advantage. Multi-cell organism can eat and feed off there smellers hence giving them a total advantage. Also yes no species has survived from the beginning to this day… but their progeny always do. When a species goes extinct it is not always a dead end but in fact most species beget a new species or two before dieing off.

The probability of randomly hitting on the sequence to code for a simple protein is one chance in 10(-130); that is one followed by 130 zeros. With a background mutation rate of one in a billion there would never be enough time?

Actually the probability is not nearly that low since almost all genes are based off a pervious version very little mutation is needed. Also a new protein does not just magically form but is created slowly and sequentially. Yes it would take a 10^50 years for a thousand monkeys to randomly type out Hamlet but if you praised and punished the monkeys for every revise version they type base on how close it is to Hamlet it would not take them long at all: this is evolutions were things are learn though trial and error not random luck. A protein that can barely do a task that it is evolving to do won’t just magical become a fully functional protein but will have minor mutations that enhance or reduce its function. Those mutations that reduce the function will be weeded out and those that improve it will be breed on to continue improving.

Is it reasonable to ask how the immune system manages to find the genetic code (sometimes within hours) to fight invading antigens that have never existed previously? And if there is this mysterious force at work that can drive the evolution of the immune system then why should we believe that it does not also drive the evolution of species; especially when Blind Freddie can tell you that coding for new genes by way of a random process is a statistical impossibility.

Yes the genes are marked ahead of time for recombination… it not a mysterious process it in any modern genetics textbook. Recombination is universal in all sexually reproducing species so yes it is used to drive evolution… though not on the same level and intensity as immuno-recombination. Again genes are not made from scratch but evolve from previous genes.

New immunological challenges could lead to new antibody genes in B lymphocytes. Over time, such changes could be integrated in the germline DNA.

Lamarckian is not a valid form of evolution unless you talking about social and technological development which do in fact follow under such laws? There is to this day no evidence nor theoretical pathway that a B cell some how transfers its DNA to gemmates! Actually there is evidence that feti and babies emulate their mother’s antibodies through breast milk and placenta.

 

[Robert Jameson]

Cumulative Selection

>>> Actually the probability is not nearly that low since almost all genes are based off a previous version very little mutation is needed. <<<

Thankyou WellCookedFetus for your response to my post. It seems your view of evolution is very close to the Richard Dawkins “cumulative selection” interpretation. I have addressed this issue in my ebook and (with apologies to “one raven” for hijacking his thread) I will paste the section below. The Paley referred to is 18th century theologian William Paley who, in his treatise “Natural Theology” asked us to imagine we found a watch in a field; then pointed out that no reasonable person would believe the claim the watch did not have a creator. His argument being that living creatures are far more complex than the watch and must also have a creator.

From Chapter 13 of God Gametes which can be downloaded free from e-publishingaustralia.com

Minimal X:

We now deal with cumulative evolution and how it could have assisted in the development of complex body parts. Dawkins refers again to Paley’s blind watchmaker analogy, arguing that Paley did not adequately deal with the issue of cumulative evolution. To demonstrate his point he refers to the evolution of sight. His argument is that the eye did not evolve in one big step but in millions of tiny stages. He asks us to imagine all the possible evolutionary stages between an ancestral eye and our existing eye. Dawkins argues that natural selection can bridge the gap between the human eye and an earlier stage of eye development as long as each step is minimal. He points out that this gap, referred to as ‘minimal X’, can be as small as we like. We are then asked to aggregate all minimal Xs. By linking all the small changes we believe possible through natural selection we can trace the evolution of the eye back to an ancestral species with no-sight.
Dawkins then attempts to reinforce his argument by pointing out that each progressive improvement in sight conferred a selective advantage, and is correct in arguing that even partial vision would have provided an evolutionary advantage to species that first evolved sight. But going from 1% vision to 1.001% is not the same as going from 0.000% to 0.001%. The process whereby living creatures will quickly maximise an advantage is not in dispute but the first step in the evolution of an eye had to be the progress from no-sight to minimal sight. In other words we are looking for the difference between sight and no-sight and this difference is the minimal X that must be achieved in one evolutionary step.
In claiming that sight can evolve from no-sight, Dawkins has taken as given, many aspects of evolution that the God Gametes theory disagrees with. But in an attempt to simplify the following argument we will set aside questions relating to the existence of matter, source of gravitational forces that organise that matter, how life emerged or why species tend to evolve greater and greater complexity. We will not even question if there were enough time for sight to evolve independently over fifty different times at the mutation rate that Dawkins himself admits puts a break on evolutionary change. In what follows, the focus will be on one simple question: “Is it possible to go from no-sight to any-sight in one step?”
We should firstly discuss light perception. It is well known that some totally blind people have good light perception, of great benefit to the lucky, for a window or even a faint light can help them gain orientation in a room. Unfortunately we do not know if our early ancestors had light perception or if it conferred a selective advantage. There does not appear to be any medical or scientific explanation for how it works and is therefore not a subject easily addressed by evolutionary theory. It is likely however that a complete explanation for how a totally blind person can perceive light would prove even more remarkable than the creation of sight itself. But again, in the interest of simplifying this argument, let us confine the discussion to the evolution of sight, from no-sight to minimal-sight.
Dawkins argues that even a piece of light-sensitive skin could confer a selective advantage and we concede his point with the above qualifications. The argument is now going to assume that a piece of light-sensitive skin gave an early ancestor a selective advantage and subsequent generations refined it until it evolved into an eye.
The following takes up Dawkins’ challenge to find the minimal X factor. It will be the minimal difference in the skin of a creature that did not have a tiny piece of light-receptive skin and was selected against, and the skin of one who did, who survived to pass on his genetic endowment to future generations. Let us say that the absolute minimum requirement would be a piece of skin with something like a photocell for perceiving light. This photocell will also need to be connected to some form of sensory organ to signal that there is ‘light’ or there is ‘no-light’. We know that photocells in our eyes are complex and it would be impossible to go from no-photocell to the photocell in the human eye in one jump. To find the minimal X we will use another Paley type analogy. We need something simple, even less complicated than we could expect to find in primitive organisms. We will compare a photocell in light-sensitive skin to a simple incandescent light globe. It will be connected to the creature’s sensory organ by copper wire and have a simple switch to signal light, or no-light.
Some critics might object that a light globe is for generating light and not receiving it. This is true but the technology required to sense light is more complex than for sending it. Readers should also note that our analogy is only asking for a light globe and not the energy to make it glow. It is not possible to have anything more elementary that would differentiate between an earlier ancestor that can recognise light and one that cannot.
Let us picture the time before any living creature had evolved sight, when all members of our hypothetical species were without means for recognizing light. Then emerged one with this ability, it having a piece of light sensitive skin no less complicated than a light globe, a piece of copper wire and a switch. Now, returning to Paley’s field, imagine you are walking through it and found an incandescent light globe, the copper wire and a switch. You are next asked to believe that the items you found were not created by man or God but came into existence by some purely random event. This is our minimal X. The incandescent light globe, copper wire and switch were not put together in stages but simply materialised out of nothing. There was no prior knowledge of technology for making light. What you found did not come into existence by design but emerged spontaneously and by pure accident.
So we must now ask ourselves if we believe these could have emerged by some random process and in one jump.
When Thomas Edison invented the incandescent light globe in 1879 he tested over 6,000 materials in an effort to find a suitable filament. Its successful invention took over 1,200 experiments at a cost of US$40,000, an event far less likely to happen by pure chance than spontaneous typing of “Me thinks it is like a weasel.” (Incidentally, when developing a storage battery Edison is reported to have conducted over 10,000 failed experiments. When asked how he could keep going after failing 10,000 times he said; “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” 3)
Invention of the incandescent light globe represents the minimal X. The probability of a light globe, piece of copper wire and a switch all coming into existence by some random process is too unrealistic to contemplate and this analogy does not even question how this piece of light-receptive skin got wired up to a sensory organ to signal light or no-light. It is a gross understatement of the technological gap bridged when going from no-light-receptive skin to light-receptive skin. If sight evolved this way, the jump had to have happened in one step so cannot be explained by cumulative selection.

 

[ElectricFetus]

The first step to a eye was the production of a protein or chemical that was chemically affected by light... in fact many proteins and biochemicals are affected by light simply by pure optical chemical physics. That’s your missing starting step. Once one of these photo-reactive chemicals by random chance induced a response in a cell that was beneficial to those light conditions, light detection had begun. The first light detecting organism were single cellular and light detection endowed an incredible advantage.

I not sure what your getting at here are you questioning if evolution even happened or are you saying there is a divine force behind it all?

 

[Robert Jameson]

God Gametes

>>> The first step to a eye was the production of a protein or chemical that was chemically affected by light... <<<

I would expect that the production of a protein or chemical that was light sensitive would be as difficult to manufacture as the incandescent light globe. It could be argued of course that this just happened by accident but supporters of the Darwinian paradigm have to recognise that a protein or chemical by itself is not going to confer a survival advantage. An animal with a light sensitive protein or chemical has to have it connected to a sensory organ that knows what light is. A very big step?

More from Chapter 13 of God Gametes: download free from e-publishingaustralia.com

Any reader still inclined to believe the eye could have evolved by way of natural selection might care to contemplate another problem Darwinists cannot explain. If millions of years of natural selection did manage to hit upon a workable design for sight, we would expect the same blueprint to be copied over and over by successive generations. The first species with sight would have a selective advantage and pass on the same genetic formula for sight to their many descendents. We would expect to see modifications to the basic design as different species adapted to different trades and environments but all variations would have been derived from the original design.
But sight has evolved independently many times and this is not what we would expect if natural selection were the driving force of evolution. ‘Survival of the fittest’ would ensure that the first species to evolve sight would quickly overwhelm competitors and there would of course be no advantage in a species with sight, completely scrapping one design to re-evolve an eye based on a totally different formula. So Darwinists must therefore explain why the eye has evolved independently many times. Evolution of the eye is discussed in a quote from Genes – The Fight for Life by Brian J. Ford:

“There are 50 different types of eye altogether. Some are compound, others simple; some have a mucilaginous structure, others are hard; some have lenses made from the body surface, others have lenses that are soft and can be focused; some are solid, others are hollow. All fit a basic pattern, in the sense that there is a focusing system at the front and a light receptor at the back. The problem is that different groups of animals have evolved eyes that are constructed in such bewilderingly different ways. If an eye had evolved once, it would be sensible to assume that nature would have repeated much the same design in all the differing life forms. According to the standard teachings of evolution and development, this is exactly what one would predict. The facts of nature contradict that prediction.”4

Even if Dawkins had satisfactorily explained how the eye was evolved by way of cumulative evolution, this does not eliminate the presence of a God. If complex body parts were evolved in stages by some random process, then what about the big bang? Was it spontaneous or did 100,000 million stars in 100,000 million galaxies come into existence by cumulative selection? If there is no God, Dawkins should explain how cumulative evolution produced the gravitational forces that hold the universe together, how it helped life emerge from matter and whether consciousness came about through a spontaneous or cumulative process. Matter in the universe, gravitational forces that hold it together, universal life and consciousness are creations of God. The evolution of sight was made possible by living creatures on earth accessing the parent species’ external gene pool.

>>> I am not sure what your getting at here are you questioning if evolution even happened or are you saying there is a divine force behind it all? <<<

I do not question that evolution happened; it obviously did. I do not however believe that natural selection is the driving force behind greater complexity. The God Gametes theory holds that there must be some form of creator and the word God is used in the title of my book and many times throughout the text. I have not however used the word divine for I am trying to avoid the sort of implications that that sort of terminology implies.

Basically the God Gametes theory presents a model that might explain why there is life on earth and why it evolved greater complexity. My friend and proof reader Kev (Ric) Richardson calls it Darwinism Mark II and you can read his excellent Foreword to my ebook if you care to download it. The Synopsis (which gives a brief outline to the concept) is pasted below.


SYNOPSIS

The model presented in “God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen” assumes our universe is part of a multiverse. In his book “Before the Beginning” Sir Martin Rees (British Astronomer Royal) postulates the existence of other universes but God Gametes would simply say that there does not appear to be one of anything else; so why one universe? There is also the history. We started out thinking there was one earth and one sun only to find out that our earth was one of many planets and the sun merely a star. People then assumed that there was only one galaxy to find that our galaxy is one of billions. We now of course assume that there is only one universe?
From this point the God Gametes argues:

1. If there is always more than one of everything there is more than one universe.
2. If there are other universes then they would have life as does ours.
3. If they have life then it is cyclical as is all life.
4. If it is cyclical then it reproduces as does all life.

The model in God Gametes then assumes that the multiverse is hierarchical with the older and more complex universes on top and the younger and less complex below. Again this conforms to what we know to be true of reproductive systems. For example we can say that animals have two levels of the hierarchy (adults and their reproductive gametes) with the adult form living longer and being more complex than its reproductive cells.
We argue that each level of the multiverse is the reproductive system of the level above. Universes are assumed to have gender; female universes made of matter and male universes anti-matter. The Planet of the Butterfly Queen (earth) is made of matter and is the reproductive system of a single female of our parent species on the next higher level of the multiverse. Our human consciousness is the male reproductive cell she hosts from our companion antimatter planet.
This concept might be better understood if we look at it another way. We could say that planet earth has been colonised by the parent species on the next higher level of the multiverse for the purpose of reproduction. God Gametes takes a fictional look at our parent species on that higher level to find they are far more complex creatures than us but their universe is older and will soon run out of fuel, to then die. Parent species know that to preserve their life and the billions of years of heritage they created, they must reproduce on a lower multiverse level.
Our model takes a provocative look at Darwinism challenging the belief that our universe, the forces that hold it together and the intelligent life that we know exists on at least one planet, could be the result of a random process. It is argued that natural selection could never have created life and even if it had, could not have driven the evolution of greater complexity. We believe the formula for complex body parts and the motivation to evolve them is sourced from our parent species on that higher multiverse level.
God Gametes points to creation having a purpose, claiming that life and matter did not arise by accident and that our rapid evolution from ape to homo sapiens was driven by the need to host the male reproductive cells of our parent species. Human consciousness is attempting to fertilize a female egg and our goal in life is to become a new member of the parent species and be elevated to that higher multiverse level.

 

[Robert Jameson]

God Gametes

You can read more on God Gametes by going to the "Subcultures" section in sciforums. I have started a thread called "God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen" in the "Pseudoscience" subsection.

Robert Jameson

 

[ElectricFetus]

I would expect that the production of a protein or chemical that was light sensitive would be as difficult to manufacture as the incandescent light globe.

Not at all, all it requires is a chirality axis and an alkene (double bond) most bimolecular have them and light causes constant chirality changes, and usually these are ignored but some are not, like retinol… guess what that stuff is used for?

As for God gametes: it a nice theory but I still see random chances a quite possible. Also putting it in the psuedoscience sub-forum is not a good move.

 

[Robert Jameson]

Cosmic Ancestry

>>> As for God gametes: it a nice theory but I still see random chances a quite possible. Also putting it in the psuedoscience sub-forum is not a good move.<<<

Thanks WellCookedFetus. I did not want to put it in the pseudoscience section but I am new to the forum and on my arrival there was a big thing going on about “alternative theories” moving in on the genuine science sections. Not that it is always easy to know what is “pseudoscience” and what is “the real thing” but I am certainly a sceptic when it comes to crop circles, alien abductions and the like.

Chapter 10 of God Gametes borrows heavily from information provided by Brig Klyce at www.panspermia.org Brig Klyce is a supporter of Cosmic Ancestry. This concept claims that life was seeded from space and adherents of this theory include Chandra Wickramasinghe and the late Sir Fred Hoyle. Cosmic Ancestry is purely scientific and does not believe in a life force as does God Gametes. But both Cosmic Ancestry and God Gametes argue that genes for building body parts must have been present first. In other words the evolutionary process followed the introduction of the genes. Cosmic Ancestry arguing that the genes for life (and evolving greater complexity) floated down from space, God Gametes suggesting they were sent by signal from a parent species on the next higher level of a multiverse. Evidence that the genes were here first (and did not evolve in conjunction with the body parts they control) is presented below.

From Chapter 10 of God Gametes which can be downloaded free from www.e-publishingaustralia.com

Genes from Nowhere

Scientists have discovered genes for histones in archaebacteria and metazoan genes that are twice as old as metazoa. Neither can be explained by the Darwinian paradigm but both findings are consistent with Cosmic Ancestry and God Gametes theories.
The complete genome of archaebacterium Methanococcus jannaschii was published in 1996.9 Archaebacterium Methanococcus jannaschii is capable of surviving in extremely harsh environments and can metabolise things like rocks and is thought to be a likely candidate for the first living organism on earth. It contained five genes for histones, which are proteins not used by eubacteria or archaebacteria and are used in the formation of the complex chromosomal structure of eukaryotic cells.
Darwinism cannot explain the presence of genes for histones in archaebacterium Methanococcus jannaschii. The process of natural selection will not make or retain for hundreds of millions of years a gene it does not use. It is also noteworthy that two genes for histones are not part of the main chromosome but are located on a smaller ‘extra chromosomal element.’ This is important because genes transferred from one cell to another tend to be located on extra chromosomal elements before the process of transduction. It appears that archaebacterium M. jannaschii is preparing two of these genes for export to eukaryotic cells where they can be used.
In October 1996 Gregory Wray reported finding seven metazoan genes about twice as old as their appearance in the fossil record.10 Metazoa are multi-celled animals that developed rapidly from the beginning of the Cambrian period 570 million years ago. But more primitive metazoa without skeletons or protective shells first appeared at the outset of the Ediacaran period 700 to 670 million years ago.11 It is obviously difficult for the Darwinian theory of evolution to explain how the process of natural selection might have produced metazoan genes hundreds of millions of years before the appearance of metazoa. If natural selection is driving the evolution of species, a basic requirement is the presence of the species it is evolving. The principle of survival of the fittest cannot evolve a gene for an organism that does not exist. If metazoan genes existed before the appearance of metazoa, the genetic formula for them could not have been developed by natural selection.
The discovery of genes for histones in archaebacteria and metazoan genes twice as old as metazoa is overwhelming evidence that the genetic formula comes first and the evolution of species follows. To have the genetic formula of an organism appear first is consistent with both Cosmic Ancestry and the God Gametes theory. If genes for life came from space or were part of the parent species’ EGP (external gene pool), we would expect the evolution of species to follow the introduction of their genes.

Coordinating Genes

Coordinating genes are master genes that map out the bodies architecture during embryonic development. They determine how body segments develop and the formation of organs that grow inside these segments. For example they tell an insect embryo where to grow wings and a fish where to develop gills. In 1995 Edward B. Lewis, Eric F. Wieschhaus and Christiane Nusslein-Volhard won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for identifying a family of coordinating genes arranged along the chromosome in the same order as the body segments they controlled. These genes were later to become known as homeotic selector genes.
If organisms evolve by natural selection the genetic programmes for embryological development would have to relate closely to the body parts they control. For example we would not expect to find in a species a genetic programme for developing one type of body part if these creatures did not have this part. If natural selection were the driving force of evolution we would expect all genes for making body parts and the organs they make, to evolve together. But recent discoveries have shown that the same master control gene for coordinating embryological development of the eye works in both wasps and mice.12
The same master control gene in mammals and insects, groups that have evolved separately for 500 million years, demonstrates that coordinating genes for eye development must have been present before the evolution of the eye. Further research in this area revealed that a gene coordinating the development of eyes is common to mice, squid and fruitfly.13 Similarities in homeotic genes have been found between drosophila and the toad xenopus laevis.14 Researchers at the John Innes Centre for Plant Research in Norwich, England and Caltech have also found similarities in homeotic genes between the fruit-fly and a plant.15

It is difficult for Darwinists to explain the appearance of coordinating genes before a species has developed the body parts they coordinate. But it is argued by Cosmic Ancestry and God Gametes that genes for making complex body parts need to be present first. Only when a species has acquired genes for making a body part can the organ evolve.
The Darwinian argument is that life evolved in a closed system by way of natural selection. Cosmic Ancestry and God Gametes believe life on earth did not evolve in a closed system and that it was impossible for natural selection to have produced genetic formulae for complex living organisms. A useful analogy we can use here to help us better understand what is being argued by Darwinists and the countering theory put by Cosmic Ancestry and God Gametes, looks at an evolutionary process in both closed and open systems and what the ‘formula coming first’ tells us about both.
Let us say that the motorcar first evolved mostly in Europe and North America and that this developmental process was a closed system. The first motor vehicles had to be developed from the bottom up because technology did not exist. Blueprints for manufacturing them had to follow the evolutionary process.
On the other hand we could say that later development of the motor vehicle industry in Japan was an open system because blueprints for manufacturing motorcars in Japan did not have to follow the evolutionary process.
If life on earth started in a closed system, genes for making body parts would have to evolve in conjunction with the development of the species they coordinate. But if living creatures on this planet evolved in an open system we would expect that genes for embryonic development would be available before the evolution of the body parts they control. The same as blueprints were already available for making cars in the rapid evolution of Japan’s motor vehicle industry.
The discovery that coordinating genes for embryonic development were present before the body parts they control, totally discredits the Darwinian argument that life on earth evolved in a closed system and that formulae for life were found by the process of natural selection.


9. * Bult, Carol J. et al. (39 others) “Complete Genome Sequence of the Methanogenic Archaeon, Methanococcus jannaschii” p 1058-1073 v 273 Science. August 23, 1996.
10. * Gregory; Jeffrey S. Levinton and Leo H. Shapiro. “Molecular Evidence for Deep Precambrian Divergences Among Metazoan Phyla” p 568 v 274 Science. 25 October 1996.
11. Encyclopadia Britannica 2001, Deluxe edition on CD ROM - Precambrian times
12. * Halder, Georg; Patrick Callaerts and Walter J. Gehring. “Induction of Ectopic Eyes by Targeted Expression of the eyeless Gene in Drosophila” p 1788-1792 v 267 Science. 24 March 1995.
13. * Holden, Constance. “On the Path of the Primordial Eye” p 1885 v 275 Science. 28 March 1997.
14. * Brown, T.A. Genetics: A Molecular Approach, 2nd edition. Chapman and Hall 1992. p 171.
15. * Goodrich, Justin; Preeya Puangsomlee; Marta Martin; Deborah Long; Elliot M. Meyerowitz and George Coupland. “A Polycomb-group gene regulates homeotic gene expression in Arabidosis” p 44-51 v 386 Nature. 6 March 1997.

 

[ElectricFetus]

The histones like genes most likely serve a purpose for the archea other then the purpose it serves us. The archea kingdom is the direct ancestor of the all other kingdoms so it is not unlikely to find genes like this. Also plasmid transport of genes is not against Darwinian evolution, if it was then sex would be to! As for the metazoa once again your not consider what the gene is used for can change over time. Just because we associate a gene with a use today does not mean that similar and/or ancestral versions were used for the same thing.

The same master control gene in mammals and insects, groups that have evolved separately for 500 million years, demonstrates that coordinating genes for eye development must have been present before the evolution of the eye.

That’s exactly what Darwinian evolutions predicts thank you. Both mammals and insect have that gene because they have a common ancestor that evolve it. The operon is need ti make eyes and both needed eyes in fact I can put a good bet their/our ancestral need that operon as well.

It is difficult for Darwinists to explain the appearance of coordinating genes before a species has developed the body parts they coordinate.

Not at all the operons most likely have been needed for other body parts. “coordinating genes” and “master genes” or operons as their more technique term control many other genes that are downstream of them directly in transcriptance. The gene they control vary from species to species. This makes it very possible for the your scenario to happen through Darwinian evolution. If you look at it the genes are actually not available in ancestral forms: Fish do not have the genes for legs but they do have the operon because it is need to place fins!

 

[Robert Jameson]

Sexual Selextion

I suppose it can be rationalised. But it still seems that (with rapidly changing environmental conditions and rapid speciation) organisms were able to predict in advance (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years) a genetic formula that would work. To my mind that is stretching the bow too far.

>>> Also plasmid transport of genes is not against Darwinian evolution, if it was then sex would be to! <<<

What has gender or sex got to do with Darwinism?

From Chapter 6 of God Gametes at www.e-publishingaustralia.com

Sexual Selection

The Darwinian theory of evolution holds that selection is everything and it has a mechanism that explains the ‘why’. Its doctrine claims that all creatures must survive and it is the need to adapt to a changing environment that has put in place the genetic formulae of all beings.
God Gametes however does not agree that selection is being driven by our need to survive; it argues that bacterial life is the best adapted and that Darwinism cannot explain the evolution of greater complexity.
God Gametes recognises the importance of selection. There is no point in a parent species having an EGP (external gene pool) that can code for complexity if earth’s creatures select in favour of a more simple genetic formula.
Life on earth did not voluntarily evolve greater complexity when it could only reduce its chances of survival and make adapting to a changing environment more difficult. Parent species needed a mechanism by which they could put in place the formulae that has transformed this planet from a primitive primordial soup into complex beings able to function as their external reproductive system.
Every time one generation of a species was replaced by the next a new code for life was selected. Whenever DNA was transferred from one creature to another or was moved to a new place along a chromosome, a genetic code was being selected. God Gametes believes that selection has been influenced since the beginning of time and at all levels. The rapid evolution of our species would also suggest that selection has been biased. More importantly though, there is evidence for how it is done.

There is widely held belief that the only purpose for sex is to provide stimulation to reproduce. In previous generations the risks associated with childbirth were high and it is argued that without the pleasure and excitement of sex humans would not have had enough children to ensure continuation of our species. But with modern contraceptives women can enjoy sex without getting pregnant. Very few choose not to reproduce even though the pain and risk of childbirth is still considerable. Some childless couples go to extraordinary lengths to have children and their motivation to reproduce is obviously not driven by sexual gratification.
God Gametes argues that survival of our species would have been possible without the pleasure and excitement associated with sex. The fact that incentives to reproduce are offset by equally powerful measures to prevent reproduction1 suggests that the role of social sex is more important than previously recognised.
We know it is possible for genetic information encoded in DNA to transfer from one individual to another and even between species.2 External genetic formulae must also be mobile. This external genetic information needs to be exchanged between individuals, between species and between different levels of EGP in the same way that genes between individuals and between species are shuffled about by various processes of gene recombination. God Gametes insists that sex is the means by which the EGP of one being will exchange genetic information with the EGP of another.
Most non-human animal species copulate in about 8 seconds and reproduction is achieved without the intense emotional involvement common to us. The Smooth-mouth Salamander (ambystoma texanum) produces sperm in spermatophores that are deposited, then left for passing females to pick up and place in their reproductive tracts.3 In this situation reproduction has been successful without physical contact between parents.
It is God Gametes theory that emotions and sexual excitement associated with human reproduction have not evolved as a motivation to fertilization. Sex is needed as a means by which the evolutionary direction of a species can change and ours has undergone rapid evolutionary change. And developed in many ways environmentally non-adaptive. The size of the brain in human lineage for instance, has trebled in the last 3 million years and we have had to evolve physical qualities necessary to function as part of the reproductive system of parent species.
Our external gene pool needed to find a balance between the genetic options available in our parent specie’s vast gene pool and what was possible for us to evolve on earth. Now we realise that the process by which genetic information is exchanged sexually allows us to communicate demands of an ever changing environment with their EGP.
But more importantly sex provides the means by which they influence selection so that when we choose a sexual partner we do not always select the qualities best suited for adaptation.
This chapter will argue that our choice of sexual partners, our social interactions and even the food we eat is influenced by our parent species. Genetic codes for greater complexity are in food that tastes good, in the music we like to hear, in art we appreciate, in books we like to read and in the people we find sexually attractive. Sex facilitates the exchange of non-material genetic information in our individual external gene pools similar to the way sections of DNA are moved from one living organism to another by the various processes of recombination (see Recombination, Chapter 9). In this way our species has been engineered to evolve the body parts needed for hosting Father King’s reproductive cell.
By influencing the way we interact with the environment and the people we take as lovers, our parent species has been able to force the selection of genetic formulae that codes for greater complexity.

In the human species sexual activity is designed more as a contraceptive than for reproduction. Some animals produce litters and have a better than one-to-one ratio between copulations and offspring. Baker and Bellis (Robin Baker and Mark A.Bellis’ Human Sperm Competition – Copulation, masturbation and infidelity) report on a survey of 3,697 UK subjects with an estimated 2.5 million copulations that produced 800 children (3,200 copulations per child).4 Their research also shows that humans tend to copulate more in the post fertile stage of the menstrual cycle.
Sexual activity with a bias to the infertile stage of the menstrual cycle, sex between couples of the same gender, sexual activity when the female is pregnant, sexual crypsis that hides the fertile stage of the menstrual cycle, short life span of both female eggs and male sperm cells and sexual relationships formed between those either too young or too old to be fertile, tend to suggest that sexual activity has an important role to play that is unrelated to paternal support, sperm competition or the simple fertilization of the female egg by the male sperm cell.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I suppose it can be rationalised. But it still seems that (with rapidly changing environmental conditions and rapid speciation) organisms were able to predict in advance (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years) a genetic formula that would work. To my mind that is stretching the bow too far.

It not a matter of predicting, think about all the billion of other critters that did not have what it takes, why did they not predict the right genes?

Oh god these post are to long! I'll get back to you on the below when I have time to read it.

 

[Robert Jameson]

>>> Oh god these post are to long! I'll get back to you on the below when I have time to read it. <<<

Please find time to read it and then maybe we can change the subject. Sex is a far more interesting topic?

>>> It is not a matter of predicting, think about all the billions of other critters that did not have what it takes, why did they not predict the right genes? <<<

There are of course many species that never make it but the randomising of gene sequencing that you seem to be suggesting would never produce a workable genetic formula for anything. As Chandra Wickramasinghe points out, if you ramdonise slow it is like saying that all world literature has been sourced from The Book of Genesis by the infrequent miss-spelling of a word and the occasional swapping of sentences. Wickramasinghe also makes the point that if such a gradualist approach were ever attempted experimentally, all text along the way would need to be as viable as literature. And if you randomise too quickly genes will lose their function, more likely be recessive, become silent and as a silent gene not be influenced by natural selection. In the Genesis analogy this would be like taking a paragraph of text and cutting it, not into words or sentences but into individual characters, then attempting to recreate viable text by way of purely random assortment. We cannot create new and viable text by the slow randomising of characters and the swapping of sentences, nor can it be done by complete random assortment of the whole text. And it is futile to suggest that an intermediate path might work. If a rag doll cannot stand and cannot run, you are never going to make it walk.

But when we look at the evolutionary paths that species follow it does not appear that there are “billions of other critters that did not have what it takes”.


From Chapter 10 of God Gametes which can be downloaded free at www.e-publishingaustralia.com

If a random process finds new and environmentally adaptive genes, changes in evolutionary direction would be impossible to predict. Most Darwinists would agree with the statement by Stephen Jay Gould:

“any alteration in any step along the way would have unleashed a cascade down a different channel.” 19

Equally, it would be just as unlikely for two species to follow the same evolutionary path. But there are numerous examples of species that evolve in similar ways. The same patterns of development have been observed in species, in traits and even at the molecular level. This is called ‘convergent evolution’ and is dealt with at length in Chapter 16.
It is of course difficult to recreate in the laboratory what nature has done over time but recent experiments at Indiana University and Cuernavaca, Mexico, duplicated the evolutionary steps of the sunflower Helianthus anomalous. This species first evolved by hybridisation of two older species 100,000 years ago. Scientists produced three different hybrid lines by crossbreeding ancestral sunflower species, all created artificially by a variety of different trials. Gene composition of the three was compared after reproducing separately for five generations20 and researchers found that despite different crossing schemes, plants from all three lines ended up with almost identical gene combinations. Gene combinations of plants that were bred experimentally were also similar to the hybrid sunflower that evolved naturally 100,000 years ago.
It seems that rewinding the tape of life does not create a multitude of different evolutionary paths as predicted by the Darwinian theory of natural selection. The report on the above experiments states’ “When this tape is rewound, it plays pretty much the same program.”21

19. Gould, Stephen Jay. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. W.W. Norton and Company 1989. p 284.
20. * Rieseberg, Loren H.; Barry Sinervo; C. Randal Linder; Mark C. Ungerer and Dulce M. Arias. “Role of Gene Interactions in Hybrid Speciation: Evidence from Ancient and Experimental Hybrids” p 741-745 v 272 Science. 3 May 1996.
21. * Coyne, Jerry. “Speciation in Action” p 700-701 v 272 Science. 3 May 1996.

 

[ElectricFetus]

You just keep piling it on don't you? |-(

Most non-human animal species copulate in about 8 seconds and reproduction is achieved without the intense emotional involvement common to us.

Oh that is so not true! Most animals do have a very detectable physiological pleasure response from copulation. Pleasure is needed to get things to @#$% in the first place… especially animals many of which do not have a sentient clue why they are having sex or its reproductive benefits, most just to it because it feels good and its instinctive. There are other things I could quote from you first post but honestly I don’t know where you going with this stuff nor do I understand the significant, none of what you’re saying seems to be re-enforcing your theory.

There are of course many species that never make it but the randomizing of gene sequencing that you seem to be suggesting would never produce a workable genetic formula for anything.

Randomization and mutation do in fact only produce stuff most of which is junk, you need evolution to pick and choose the stuff of quality. Random mutations will and have produce viable genes with the assistance of evolutionary selection.

convergent evolution is in fact quit acceptable as long as to different species have the same environmental pressures and law of physic working on them.

As for the sunflower I would have to wee the primary research on that.

 

[Robert Jameson]

>>> Most animals do have a very detectable physiological pleasure response from copulation. Pleasure is needed to get things to @#$% in the first place…<<<

Desmond Morris (in The Human Animal) estimates that humans, given time and opportunity, would spend 100 times more time in sexually related activity than most species. The salamander reproduces without any contact between parents. The male salamander leaves his sperm in spermatophores which are later picked up by passing females.

>>> I don’t know where you going with this stuff nor do I understand the significant, none of what you’re saying seems to be re-enforcing your theory. <<<

Our heightened sexuality appears to put a break on our reproductive success. This is contradictory to what would be predicted by Darwinism but not the God Gametes theory. God Gametes argues that there is an “external gene pool” from which we source the genes for building greater complexity. It is thought that the emotional attachments we develop with loved ones (and sexual activity) assists in the exchange of genetic information in the same way that genes are shuffled about by the various methods of gene recombination.

>>> Random mutations will and have produce viable genes with the assistance of evolutionary selection. <<<

I do not know what you mean by this? Evolutionary selection can not assist the production of viable new genes. The gene will first be mutated and then the new gene sequence will have to be found before natural selection can sort out the good ones from the bad. Evolutionary selection will not help if the randomising of DNA has only produced junk. It is true that a species will sometimes benefit from a gene being disabled by a mutation but I am not aware of a viable new gene function being produced this way.

>>> convergent evolution is in fact quite acceptable as long as to different species have the same environmental pressures and law of physic working on them. <<<

Convergent evolution presents many anomalies that the Darwinian paradigm can not explain. I will not make the moderator mad by posting sections here but the God Gametes thread in the pseudoscience section has some posts on this topic and also Chapter 16 of my ebook.