How Evolution Learns From Past Environments To Adapt To New Environments

Science Daily ^ | 11/10/2008

[Soliton]

The evolution of novel characteristics within organisms can be enhanced when environments change in a systematic manner, according to a new study by Weizmann Institute researchers.

Merav Parter, Nadav Kashtan and Uri Alon suggest that in environments that vary over time in a non-random way, evolution can learn the rules of the environment and develop organisms that can readily generate novel useful traits with only a few mutations. Details are published November 7 in the open-access journal PLoS Computational Biology

In this study Parter, Kashtan and Alon began with the observation that environments in nature seemingly vary according to common rules or regularities. They proposed that organisms can learn how previous environments changed, and then use this information for their evolutionary advantage in the future. For example, if the available seeds tended to vary in size and hardness along history, then bird species might have learned to develop beaks with an easily tunable size and strength.

[Soliton]

Evolution isn't random.

[Liberty1970]

Naturalistic evolution is a combination of law and chance (randomness). Pre-adaptationism (such as this article implies) is a distinctly non-evolutionary concept. It's like proposing, "OK, it's unreasonable to believe a car evolved by chance... but if we just assume the pre-existing existence of an automated, robotic car factory, then the spontaneous generation of an automobile becomes quite reasonable."

Sure. But such proposals elevate the level of complexity that now needs to be explained. Where did the presumed genetic machinery that can quickly produce refined responses to environmental changes come from, and how does it know which responses (out of an astronomical number of random and mostly harmful responses) are useful? It's no wonder that the originator of this whole approach to evolutionary difficulties, Dr. Dean Kenyon, eventually became a creationist.

[Vaquero]

thats it... the election is over and now its time to put a burr under the collective saddle of the Luddites.

That means nothing is important anymore in Washington. That would be nice but it is not true.

[ClearCase_guy]

Looks like Intelligent Design is finally catching on.

[Soliton]

Looks like Intelligent Design is finally catching on.

YES! That IS what the article is about!

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

So evolution is teleological, eh? Interesting.

[Robert A Cook PE]

They proposed that organisms can learn how previous environments changed, and then use this information for their evolutionary advantage in the future. For example, if the available seeds tended to vary in size and hardness along history, then bird species might have learned to develop beaks with an easily tunable size and strength.

---

Gee. From this description - I assume from an evolutionist - you’d think that Somebody was designing and controlling this whole evolution thing according to a long-range strategy that remembers the past. Doesn’t sound very random to me.

[stormer]

Evolution is not random. If I interpret this correctly, organisms develop a genetic memory that allows them to adapt more efficiently to changing environmental conditions. Rather than relying solely on the genetic drift (as in an unchanging environment), these populations assemble a “toolbox” whereby they don't have to reinvent the wheel as conditions change. This, coupled with genetic drift and selection, drives the evolutionary machinery - no design or control needed.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[Robert A Cook PE]

Interesting that you too are using all “active verbs” to describe these random mutations: including his poorly defined “genetic "memory"” : “assemble”, “reinvent the wheel” ("invent the wheel" in the first place” ?), “relying”, and even “adapt”.

Evolution (as proposed) only allows random mutations at random times. Some live - and some of those mutations may get passed on to the next generation. The rest die.

His premise requires a long series of changes - unless you allow that the DNA/genes are this “storage device” - but then you still need to (1) cause a second random mutation to “stop the first (beneficial) mutation, then (2) “store the stopped mutation sufficiently accurately so that it can be re-started, but NOT be active for many generations; then (3) have ANOTHER random mutation to “unstop” the second change - but NOT destroy the first random mutation; then (4) and a fourth random mutation NOT happen to stop the now-needed third random mutation from getting “turned off” too early.

I supposed all that could happen. Randomly.

8<)

[Soliton]

So evolution is teleological

I didn't see the word in the article, but if you believe in invisible things without evidence, I suppose anything is possible in your worldview.

[stormer]

Semantics aside, the fundamental issue is the concept of “randomness”. The term implies that the opportunity for any and every change is equal - this is not the case. You seem to want to make a mathematical argument out of biological constructs.

[Robert A Cook PE]

No.

[Gitche Gumee]

[scottdeus12]

So...a Man is a Bird is a Bug is a Plant......that’s what you’re saying?

[scottdeus12]

“Evolution isn’t random.”

So you are saying it’s ordered?

[freedom9]

Seeds are amazing.

They each contain the respective design/blueprint to construct, replicate and multiply it’s own kind.

What if there was no “big bang” but rather just the germination of a “universe seed”

[Robert A Cook PE]

Nah. 8<)

Genesis describes the Big Bang in the same exact sequence that science today describes it. (It is off a few decimals places, but - heck - the old shepherds didn’t exactly have a zero.)

Much less logarithms and powers-of-ten yet ....

[Soliton]

So you are saying it’s ordered?

Evolution follows the laws of physics like everything else. It is therefore limited in the direction it can take.

[allmendream]

Non viability is something of a “death sentence” isn't it? We are all imperfect replicators and the descendants of a long line of imperfect replicators, all of whom had to be viable and reproductively sound.

On a molecular basis that is a fairly high bar to clear, keeps out the ‘riff raff’. ;)