Below is an image of the developmental path from human conception to adult in comparison with evolutionary path from prokaryote to human.
Unlike Haeckel’s biogenetic law with its focus on physical forms, the comparison above also concerns activity, lifestyle and behaviour. Comparative stages may be vastly different in detail, but the similarity of general lifestyles and consecutive stages are there to be observed.
Human life begins in an aquatic environment. Toddlers gradually learn to walk upright from a previous state of crawling and moving around on all fours. The brains of children develop through daily interactions and experiences. This brain development accompanies the child’s increasing ability to achieve complex manipulation skills using hands that have been released from the task of providing support and locomotion, and also the practice of producing sounds using the various muscles of the mouth. Well developed brains allow for rational thinking and the creative use of language.
Human minds have brought about technological advances which have allowed human activities to engulf the planet. Signs of intelligent human activity are evident a good distance beyond the earth spreading ever further out into space.
The various forms of extant animals and all other life forms have evolved as an integral component of the living earth and the whole forms a dynamic system.
The various animal forms should be studied in the context of the complete system in both time and space. Conditions would have been very different prior to the terrestrial colonization of earthly life In all probability none of the present aquatic animals would bear any resemblance to the aquatic ancestors of humans and other higher vertebrates save that at some stage they all require an aquatic environment for their continued existence.
From a point of view which regards physical organisms as the individual expressions of overarching general forms, the evolution of cetaceans need not have involved moving to the land only to return to the water at a later time. They may have reached the mammalian stage of evolution but in a way that was suitable for an aquatic lifestyle. They adopted the archetypal mammalian form in a way that suited an animal living in an aquatic environment and there would be no need to posit a terrestrial stage in their evolution.
It’s my belief that higher consciousness is ever present. Evolution is the process whereby higher forms of consciousness descend from the group level to the individual level. The most fully developed individual consciousness which I am aware of on earth can be found in humans but it is still rudimentary compared to the higher level group consciousness.
Plasticity is a fundamental feature of living systems at all levels from human brain development to the radiation of multicellular life. Paths are formed by branching out and becoming fixed along certain lines. It would be impossible to forecast specific paths but, nonetheless, there is a general overall direction.
Now that biological life has reached the stage where social organisms have become individually creative and rational, the all encompassing Word is reflected in single beings. This could not have come about without preparation and the evolution of earthly life is the evidence of this preparation. We, as individuals, are only able to use language and engage in rational thinking because our individual development has prepared us to do so. Likewise humanity could not arrive at the present state of culture without the evolutionary preparation in its entirety.
Focussing in at the lower level gives a picture of ruthless competition, of nature “red in tooth and claw”. But from a higher vantage point life benefits from this apparent brutality. For instance if a sparrowhawk makes regular hunting visits to a suitable habitat in your neighbourhood it signifies that this environment supports a healthy songbird population. In the case of the continued evolution of physical forms, survival of the breeding population is more important than any individual’s survival. In the evolution of consciousness the individual is the important unit.
I think it is a mistake to see biological evolution as a blind random groping towards an unknown and unknowable future.
🙂
I’ve just found out that they don’t even need to be dead.
From this article
Amoebae certainly get around. 🙂
I used to know all the good ponds for finding frogs and newts when I was a kid. I even took a newt home and lost it in my bedroom. In the morning I asked my mother if she had seen it but she denied all knowledge. I still have my suspicions. 🙂
Nowadays we have tadpoles in the garden for the grandkids to watch developing.
Can you give me an example of when I called speculation baseless?
Do you think that the very early life had cell membranes? In what way do you think early cell membranes would have differed from the basic lipid bilayer cell membranes around today?
Maybe you misunderstood what I was attempting to say. A blacksmith developing strong arms will not result in his children having strong arms.
If only it were that simple.
I’m aware of all that. What I am saying is not that static forms recapitulate, but that dynamic processes recapitulate. There are transitions that mimic each other moving from the overall evolution of earthly life down to the cellular level.
This is not news.
That is an observational (using the word loosely) artefact.
You don’t read much do you?
I guess you just hate science.
I don’t understand the thrust of this comment. Most people here read quite a great deal, and nobody hates science. If you disagree with Alan Fox, can you explain the nature of your disagreement, and/or present the science you’re referencing?
Perhaps I can clarify what I was referring to. Charlie appeared to be pointing out that acquired traits are not inherited. The concept advanced by Lamark was superceded by Darwin and his idea of selection. That Lamarkism is obsolete is therefore not news as Darwin published On the origin of Species in 1859.
phoodoo,
Like Flint, I’m puzzled by your remarks. I’ve clarified my comment and it would be helpful if you could expand on your reasoning.
CharlieM,
As I’ve said before, this seems an inevitable consequence of the increasing ‘complexification’ of the individuals thrown up by a ‘complexifying’ evolutionary series. Given such a series, of course later individuals will be more complex at their maximally complex stage than earlier ones, and likewise of course they won’t be as complex when made of few cells in early development, as compared to later stages. The two must go hand in hand.
The only ‘special’ thing being observed here is the apparent tendency to tinker with the later developmental stages rather than the earlier ones, in serial modification of a lineage. But it’s hard to see where else such tinkering could happen, without screwing the whole thing up.
I said the above in response to this:
I was making a remark about the Lamarckian idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics and although there may be some epigenetic transmission, traits do not normally get passed on in this way. Your reply seemed to be saying that these acquired characteristics have to be passed on. I suspect we were getting our lines crossed and I was hoping you would clarify what you meant by that comment.
It is a real aspect of nature, as real as the fractal nature of coastlines.
Because you don’t read much, so that is why you don’t know that acquired traits can be inherited.
Have you ever tried using Google before?
Yawn. We have covered this ground before, so I had a pretty good idea about where your wonderfully misplaced condescension was coming from. There do exist wonky epigenetic effects, wherein the environment experienced by an organism (e.g. starvation) can affect development for two or three subsequent generations.
But this fact is not the victory for Lamarkism that you suppose.
There are also well-understood mechanisms that allow for the propagation of epigenetic states over many generations…in single celled organisms.
However, the statement on this thread was
which is entirely correct, and not news to anyone familiar with the literature.
so your
demonstrates your ignorance, as ever.
Enlighten me then. If it is DNA methyation you are referring to, my response is not going to differ much from DNA_Jock’s, I suspect, but let’s see.
CharlieM,
So are we clear now?
Oh, do tell…
You mean acquired traits can be inherited then?
Oh, I see.
Jock where do you find time to post when you are not moderating your posts? Chatting with Alan about how he also is a scumbag?
phoodoo,
I too knew exactly where you were going with that – straight to epigenetics, overtrumpeted as the Death of Darwin in Creationist circles. Oddly enough, Darwin was much more sympathetic to Lamarckian ideas than his successors – which skepticism carries on to this day, despite some (IMO) over-zealous reporting of very little data.
Multi-generational Lamarckism is somewhat undermined by biparental inheritance and the constriction of diploidy.
Ah, I see as well. There is a limited degree to which acquired traits can be inherited – limited in the type of trait, the cause of acquisition, and the number of subsequent generations affected.
Statistically, I suppose plenty of socially acquired traits are also passed from one generation to the next. Most of these are also temporary.
Nonetheless, I think we can say Lamarck was wrong.
I don’t think so, but we are probably using different definitions of “acquired”. Lucky for us, the topic of conversation was the accuracy of the statement
which remains entirely correct, epigenetics notwithstanding. Are you going to proffer evidence to support your position re the children of blacksmiths, or keep trying to change the subject?
I’m betting on the latter. 😀
What evidence do you have that this is the case? Because you don’t think it can? Don’t you know incredulity is not an argument against evolution?
I would ask Jock to provide evidence for this claim, but he is too busy fellatioing and colluding with Alan to subvert the rules of this forum to have time to do things like provide evidence for his specious arguments.
I asked google for links to sites explaining epigenetic inheritance. Then I summarized what I found there. This one helped me:
There were many more. Help yourself.
Flint,
No, your claim was that you know what the limits of acquired inherited traits are. Neither you, nor Jock (when he is not blowing or being blown by Alan) know what those limits are-although in Jocks case he also is claiming there are no acquired inherited traits, or some, or well, they are wonky, it only happens in single celled organisms, but well, also in mammals and other living things, and well, but still, …so it just depends on his mood after Alan finishes him I guess.
phoodoo,
Innuendo isn’t an argument. Tell us about how
epigeneticsepigenetic inheritance* works. What’s the mechanism?*ETA
phoodoo,
What’s your top pick for an example of an acquired inherited trait?
Hello you epigenetics lovers,
Royal Society Publishing has recently published a special issue of Philosophical Transactions B entitled “How does epigenetics influence the course of evolution?”
Enjoy.
phoodoo’s father was a s.o.b also?
Let’s also cite Lamarck’s laws from his Philosophie zoologique here, since we appear to be discussing his theory of use and disuse of organs:
Alan Fox,
Here Corneel has graciously given you a good place to start.
Oh, but it can’t possibly affect arm size…!
No need to apologize for your ignorance, Alan. But you should go over to the moderation thread to apologize.
The universe of living things.
Sure, but that is such a superficial resemblance that it is meaningless. The trouble was that you actually disputed we could be certain that there never was a tadpole stage in the evolution of frogs.
That is of course your right. Just as it is mine to point out that you are inconsistent in adopting or rejecting the scientific consensus to suit your specific needs.
In contrasts to human zygotes, who do not colonize the bowels, bore down the intestinal wall, then invade liver, brain and lungs, like Entamoeba histolytica does. There is no “similarity of general lifestyle”.
I strongly approve.
This is my interpretation based on your word choice. When you call certain conclusions “speculation” or “educated guesses”, that signals to me that you believe those to be ungrounded.
In my definition, they’d have to be cellular to qualify as life 😄. But yes, I consider it to be plausible that early life started off with cells. I suspect the membrane composition would be radically difficult from modern day cells as the very first cellular life would have had to work with spontaneously generated amphipathic molecules or those from primitive metabolism.
Nobody is denying that DNA methylation is a cellular process. The question is whether there is any mechanism that is heritable that results in evolutionary change.
Is that a claim you wish to defend with evidence? That acquired arm strength from exercise can be inherited? Suggest the mechanism, then.
Nobody needs to apologise for ignorance, it can be fixed. There is always the possibility to learn something new.
The moderation issues thread is for discussing moderation issues. Whether people apologise for bad behaviour is a personal choice.
phoodoo,
You are a veritable fountain of original ideas! 😉
Well there are such things as somatic genome variations
But just as, and possibly more importantly there is much more to genomes than linear sequence of nucleotides. If identity was based purely on linear sequences of molecules then denatured proteins would be considered identical to folded proteins.
This short video helps us to understand that genomes are constantly changing 3 dimensional structures.
It is wrong to say that there is no change between the genomes of somatic cells in an organism. The genome sequence holds the potential but it is the cellular activity that activates that potential in individual ways as required.
Is it not at least possible that bilipid membranes existed prior to living organisms as they spontaneously self organise?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005273608000795
Well, not sure about that. Anyway, I was talking about the germ-line.
Corneel,
Thanks for the link, Corneel. Have only managed to read some of the abstracts so far. I think phoodoo might also benefit from glancing at them. Anyone else having the time and inclination to read them might also spot why I might think that phoodoo would do well to read them.
It’s not just increases in complexity. It is patterns of growth and degeneration, expansion and contraction over time. I may be a more complex physical being at this moment as I was nearly seven decades ago, but the reality that is “me” is not just me as I am now. It includes the time dimension. In seven more decades I will have zero physical complexity.
Physical processes have a greater reality than physical bodies. It should not be overlooked that we are temporal beings as well as existing in space.
I don’t regard it as tinkering, I see it as tweaking the expression of the archetype.
Not entirely.
I believe that is the same process I had in mind. I just finished reading David Deamer’s book(let), who is strongly pushing the idea that life started off in small ponds with a rapid succession of wet-dry cycles. In such an environment, amphipathic compounds will alternate between being organised in multilayered membranes and protocell-like vesicles.
My hope was that the discussion would become somewhat more focused. We’ll see.
Alan Fox,
No,no, you need to apologize for not doing your job. No, in fact, not just for not doing your job, for doing the opposite of your job.
Corneel,
The focus needs to be for evolutionists to admit that they don’t have a clue what epigenetics can and can’t do. Their inability to admit that because it scares them is what prevents the focus.
In reply to my comment that organs do change during development, you said:
I took that to mean in your opinion the genome does not change between all the cells of an organism.
Corneel,
On top of that, besides Alan’s continued inability to understand what’s being discussed, along with his complete manipulation of the site, is what prevents more complex discussion. Maybe when Alan finally comes through on his threat to quit (again).
CharlieM,
OK I’ll pick up on your following comment.
There is the general case and there are exceptions. The general case for sexually reproducing organisms is that the process that results in zygote formation – meiosis, crossing over, recombination then fusing of gametes – is where new inherited genomes arise.
Of course copying errors can occur whenever DNA is being copied, such as when a somatic cell divides. The result can be cancer or if the mutation is not deleterious it can result in mosaicism. What does not happen with somatic cell mutations is that those mutations pass to the offspring.
Me too. Whilst I am not questioning that methylation plays a pivotal role in gene regulation, there seems to me to be a lack of a mechanism for how epigenetic processes feed back into a selective process. DNA methytransferases are coded in DNA after all.
Misrepresent much (or anything else much)? There is no competent biologist that I have seen making grandiose claims regarding “what epigenetics can and can’t do”. There seems indeed to be healthy discussion, research and disagreement. Several of the papers you blithely copied titles from Corneel’s link express doubt and scepticism.
It appears from what you have posted here that you are hinting at what epigenentics can and can’t do without any suggestion of how you come to that view. phoodoo? no clothes?
ETA synonym
This one?
Does the definition you cited correspond with your understanding of the term?
If so, why would inheritance that is not based in DNA sequence scare evolutionists?