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.
We have a different understanding of what superficiality means.
I wonder how you can be certain of anything from the remote past. We can be fairly confident about events but claiming total certainty sound more like a religious conviction.
I don’t do it to suit my needs. I go by wht I believe to be consistent.
Yes there is. They all depend on living in environments in which they can continue their existence and perform their natural functions as single celled organisms. They reproduce by cell division.
Sometimes there is not enough evidence to advance beyond speculation. That’s fair enough as long as we don’t take tentative proposals as fact. Then we enter into Kipling type just so stories.
Can we agree that your suspicion is a form of speculation 🙂
I never claimed total certainty; I just don’t buy your argument. Surely enough I am not the only one to tell you that the “aquatic phase” you identify in both human development and evolution is a very shaky basis to conclude there is some shared process at work that guides both.
That is a very broad brush, Up to the “as single celled organisms” part, this is true of all living beings. As for the second sentence: Zygotes do not “reproduce by cell division”, unless you are willing to dismiss the entire intermediate bit with humans doing science, art, music and love as incidental. That just doesn’t sound like you.
There is a world of difference between a scientific hypothesis and established consensus. I miss that distinction in your comments.
Oh, certainly. After all, the origin of life is still unresolved and I am not personally involved in any abiogenesis research.
Betcha I am still right though 😉
Alan Fox,
My copy is this one. It was a bit of an impulse buy, so I was surprised to find it was under a 100 pages when it arrived. Deamer suggests the “Assembling Life” book you found for further reading so I’d advise to go with that one if you’re interested.
Corneel,
Do consider the origin of the eukaryotic cell “solved” or the origin of multi cellar organisms “solved”?
Define “solved” first, since you quote it so.
And then answer the question yourself. Do you consider the origin of the eukaryotic cell “solved” or the origin of multi cellar organisms “solved”? If so, what is that “solution”? Is it the same “solution” for both, out of interest? If so does that fact itself tell you anything?
No, I don’t.
But I consider neither of those fields as problematic as the origin of insect metamorphosis. A real stumper, don’t you think?
Corneel,
Its all hard for me 🙂
It’s quite unfathomable, yes. Two entirely separate, it seems, lifeforms and “soup” in the middle. Each observed on it’s own would give no clue of the transformation either way.
Corneel
It’s got good reviews too so I’ll give it a go. Thanks.
Huh?
CharlieM,
This does not even address, let alone refute, my point.
A distinction without a difference. The tendency is still to tinker/tweak the late-stage ‘archetype’ rather than the earlier, for sound developmental reasons.
God yes, something else for evolutionists to be terrified of. I can barely sleep nights for all the things I can’t bear to contemplate for fear of where they might lead.
Corneel,
I’d like to welcome Charlie into the Reductionist Club. We don’t do much. And we’re never seen naked.
phoodoo,
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve read new findings reveal evolution to be “more complex than thought”. Thought by whom?
The existence of physical life is fundamentally dependent on the polarity between oil and water. Chemicals have properties that prepare for life in the same way that the lungs form in the embryo to prepare for their future role in gas exchange. These things are no accident.
Yes, I understand the story.
What I am saying is that genomes are not the same in all body cells. The conformation of genomes is of equal importance to the sequence of nucleotides. It has been said that nuclear DNA resembles a plate of spaghetti, if that is so it is spaghetti that is in constant motion. Wriggly worms would be a more suitable analogy.
I’m unable to make sense of this. Conformation of a genome?
Hard to say. What are you driving at? Brownian motion?
If you say so…
Noble and Shapiro, third wayers, draw the ire of the irascible Larry Moran.
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-illusions-of-james-shapiro.html?m=1
Certainly those who believe in some sort of a master plan, for one.
Alan Fox,
Let me get this straight. Moran talks about a review of Shapiros book where he is critical of it. He then says Shapiro wrote a rebuttal to that review. Finally he says BOTH the review and the rebuttal have been removed from that site where they originally appeared, so are unavailable to be read. So what does Moran do? Well, the ever helpful Larry Moran posts his critical review of the book so you can make up your mind for yourself who is right. Oh, except he DOESN’T include Shapiros rebuttal to his review!, because that would refute his assertion. What???
Gee, let me read more of this academic hack to hear his slanted viewpoint, and as a bonus we can read Joe Felsenstein’s critique of Shapiro, which of course is just Joe’s critique without any counter point. Or not. I would go there and post a rebuttal to Joe’s specious argument, but no, fuck you Larry.
In a way it is very similar to what Alan and Jock and all have tried to create here. Their bullshit biased rendering, which they do everything in their power to attempt to make it certainly unpleasant, if not near impossible to give counterpoints to, because why would most people with opposing views want to post here (It is against the rules to question one’s intellect here, except if you question one’s intellect whilst having the same viewpoint as Alan?)
I suppose one could spend 30 minutes crafting a carefully worded critique of modern evolutionary theory here, only to see Alan and Jock and Neil begin playing their spin games again, complain about their spin games and then be told, hey you are not allowed to complain about our spin games- I think I will start interfering with your posts anyway I can Alan Fox bullshit.
I can see why you like Larry Moran, Alan. Maybe Gunter will have something irrelevant to say.
Minus all the insults and irrelevant personal attacks, what I see here is a complaint that some who have disagreed with Shapiro aren’t presenting Shapiro’s side of the story. I agree it’s hard to draw an informed conclusion after reading only one side.
Well, phoodoo could step into that breach.
Let’s hear the other side.
I don’t see your problem.
(1) As far as I know, Shapiro’s book is still out there, where anybody can read it. I have a copy on my Kindle.
(2) Moran’s review was written by Moran. He has every right to republish.
(3) If Shapiro want’s his rebuttal republished, there is nothing stopping him. But there might copyright issues if Moran were to attempt that.
This.
I see the TLDR being:
If Shapiro disagrees with Crick, he’s wrong.
If he doesn’t disagree, he has nothing new and useful. At least nothing justifying the hoopla.
Back when this feud was hot news, I tended to see Shapiro’s magic designer as analogous to the immune system.
Challenge the organism, and a custom tailored solution pops out.
Evidence of this modifying the genome is eagerly awaited.
Neil Rickert,
Moran is pretending to be an academically honest person. How hard a concept to understand is it that if you are going to preach that you have some intellectually superior argument, then show what the argument you are claiming is superior is. This is hard to understand?
Basically he is just pulling a Jerry Coyne. Like Coyne he represents a university, but then he has his little snarky blog where he insulates himself, and throws out his little barbs, with a little cheerleading squad behind him. Does Shapiro do that? Does Denis Noble do that? Not from what I have seen.
So why should ANYONE believe Moran is trying to make an honest point? There are creationist whackos who do the same thing on the other side. I wouldn’t hold up Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell as beacons of intellectual discussion, and quote them as if maybe they have some good insight we should look into.
Charlatan. Carnival barker. Douchebag. The term applies equally to all of these people (PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, sorry I didn’t mean to leave you out).
Why not just tell us where he’s wrong?
Every point? In just this one case or in his other snake oil sales pitches? Critique his whole little neutral and negative mutations create exquisite sophistication schtick? Here, where Alan and Jock get to play footsie with the rules? Notwithstanding that I just pointed out one way he is wrong-you don’t print something about your critique when you know full well the person you critiqued has responded to that (bogus) critique and you aren’t honest about showing that-and guys like Neil say I don’t see what’s wrong with that..
How about Fred Phelps, you want to tell us what he says that is wrong?
Again minus the personal attacks, I think phoodoo has a point. It’s one thing to present one’s expertise, analysis, evaluation, and such that knowledgeable people do every time they write a book. It’s quite another to critique another position without presenting the position being critiqued. It’s a time-honored creationist tradition, after all, to carefully criticize claims nobody made, often attributing them to someone who of course didn’t say that.
I often read the blog writings of Richard Carrier, who takes issue with multiple people with whom he disagrees. He’s not quite as free with the personal attacks as phoodoo, but he always presents whatever he disagrees with. When his critique is responded do, he quotes that response to make his points. He always makes it possible for an informed reader to think “well, no, I think the other guy’s argument is better” because the other guy’s argument is right there.
So phoodoo is IMHO correct here – there’s a difference between being intelligently correct, and intelligently superior. For the latter, the purported intellectually inferior position must be presented.
I also bear in mind the difference between being dishonest and being wrong. Failure to present the opposing viewpoint does not ipso facto make an author incorrect, or a charlatan, or a snake oil salesman.
Strangely, I also agree that neutral theory is sometimes oversold, although phoodoo is strawmanning here. Even the strongest advocacies of neutral theory don’t include claims that adaptive evolution happens entirely without selection.
Just for completeness, here’s Larry Moran on Denis Noble and strawmen.
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-illusions-of-denis-noble.html?m=1
Like most of the biologists, I’ve come across, Deamer begins from a materialist/physicalist position. He makes the assumption that ultimately mind originates from matter. I don’t think he considers the idea that mind could be primal to matter. Of if he does entertain it he might see it as instigating the “big bang” and then leaving matter to do its own thing.
He approves of and is amused by, the phrase; “Hydrogen is a colourless, odourless gas that, when given enough time, changes into people.”
Here he states:
He demonstrates that many molecules will naturally form polymers. Well this is a necessary requirement if physical life to come about. It’s like the infamous monkeys typing. This may result in some disconnected meaningful words suddenly appearing. But if the words combine to make a meaningful story then it is in most probability much more than letters coming together randomly.
Deamer also believes that it would have been impossible for life to have begun in high concentrations of salt water, so oceanic hydrothermal vents would be poor candidates for its origin.
So why were you criticising me for disputing certainty about frog evolution?
i didn’t mention “shared processes”. We observe human development to begin in an aqueous environment, proceed to air breathing and move from purely instinctive behaviour to a stage where conscious learning develops. Human evolution is thought to follow this same path. Instead of speculating between the two I am observing that the trajectories share a similar path but on different levels.
How else do zygotes become blastulas if not by cell division?
What is that difference in your opinion? Scientific hypotheses and consensus may refer to positions that are accepted on little evidence.
Do you think our basic understanding of evolution of life since its origin has been mostly resolved?
That is rather amusing. I will remember that.
That’s because I don’t see anything to refute in what you have said. I was merely adding to what you said.
Goethean archetypes don’t have earlier and later stages. They should not be seen as static entities, they are all encompassing. Think of an archetypal triangle, it encompasses an infinity of sides ranging between zero and infinite length and an infinity of internal angles ranging from zero to 180 degrees.
Genomes and chromosomes are dynamic three dimensional entities, the positions they take up and their arrangements in space are very important for cellular function.
No, it’s much more than just Brownian motion. There is a great deal of purposeful motion within cells.
Define purposeful, in contrast to being chemistry. Could the motions be otherwise?
The simplest test of any third way hypotheses is to ask if variations in genomes favor problem solving functions. There should be some statistical test to apply.
Depending what weight “purposeful” is carrying here, sure. There are systems, endoplasmic reticulum prime example, involved in intracellular transport. That’s it’s function.
Words like purpose and function are misleading metaphors.
Even transport.
Chemistry does what it does. Labeling it purposeful adds nothing.
I think you aren’t too familiar with some of Moran’s quackiest ideas. One of them is that “favoring” isn’t necessary at all for evolutionary advancement. In fact, he even goes so far as to suggest often disadvantageous is good for spreading new variations. For the disadvantageous ones!
How he defines disadvantageous is anyone’s guess-other than we know its not a biological term, because in biology, expansion equals advantageous by definition. I guess his theory should be, “survival of the least fit,” wherein the word fit can mean purple or Mardi Gras, because words don’t matter.
Charlie, you were just making up stuff. You hypothesized an evolutionary tadpole stage without *any* support whatsoever.
An observation nobody on this site will confirm. And then you put “future higher consciousness” in your figure. Also an observation?
Unless you wield some private definition where “reproducing” means “reaching the blastula stage”, the zygote hasn’t reproduced yet.
Ideally, scientific consensus should be reached on a bit more than a “little evidence”.
Are you sitting in an empty room? I am hearing an echo.
I don’t need to know everything to be able to make some pretty good predictions. Also, I don’t need complete certainty to spot nonsense.
Phoodoo, if the shoe fits, please provide a link to some of Moran’s kookie ideas, so I can see if you are representing them correctly.
I thought mere matter was completely passive. How does matter accomplish such an amazing feat without “intrinsic activity”?
I wonder how you can be so certain about anything from the remote past. Sounds like some religious conviction.
petrushka,
He has a website you know? This conversation started because of the website. Alan even linked to it. But here, let me help you:
Edit:
I was going to link to it, but then I thought…he doesn’t even know where to find the website?
I wonder if I am allowed to go on Moran’s blog site and make fun of his ideas? I wonder how long before he will ban me. Maybe Joe has some insight into this-he likes censoring, on pandasthumb for instance.
Perhaps I will give it a try.
I suspect Larry has some rule like-you are allowed to disagree with and make fun of my ideas the same way I disagree with other people and their ideas here-except you can’t.