Alan doesn’t believe that there are any other proposed explanations to rival ‘evolutionary theory’. At least none that so effectively account for the facts.
It is often said that there is no single theory of evolution, there are a group of mutually consistent theories. Be that as it may, I think we all understand the point Alan is making.
Evolution is a process whereby life has somehow emerged from a lifeless physical world and there is no overall teleology involved in its diversification. The reproductive processes produce a natural variety of forms which can take advantage of previously unoccupied niches. The basic sequence of events from primal to present are: lifeless minerals, water systems and gaseous atmosphere, followed by the arrival of simple prokaryote life forms, followed by multicellular organisms. Life is solely the product of physical and chemical processes acting on lifeless matter.
In this view life is nothing special, it just occurred because physical matter chanced to arrange itself in a particular way. And consciousness is just a by product of life.
But I suggest that there is an alternative way in which life as we perceive it could have come about.
Arthur Zajonc in the book Catching the Light: The Entwined History of Light and Mind
Goethe was right. Try though we may to split light into fundamental atomic pieces, it remains whole to the end. Our very notion of what it means to be elementary is challenged. Until now we have equated smallest with most fundamental. Perhaps for light, at least, the most fundamental feature is not to be found in smallness, but rather in wholeness, its incorrigible capacity to be one and many, particle and wave, a single thing with the universe inside.
In the same way that in the above quote light is understood in its wholeness, so can life be understood as a whole. The variety of earthly life forms that have existed through time and space are individual expressions of an ever present archetypical whole. Life is one and many.
Holistic science attempts to get closer to the mystery of the dynamical emergence of the diversity of living forms within the unity of the continuously manifesting whole.
An arithmetical analogy between orthodox accounts of evolution and evolution as the unfolding expression of archetypal forms could be that the former is akin to addition while the latter is akin to division. Novel forms are an extra addition to what came before or novel forms are divided off from what already existed in potential. From the parts to the whole or from the whole to the parts. Which is it? Sense perception points to the former while the mind’s eye, perceiving with the mind, points to the latter. And Goethe was an expert at perceiving with the mind.
Instead of life emerging out of matter in an extended version of the spontaneous generation of mice from mud, it could at least be regarded as a possibility that physical organic life is a condensation or hardening of form out of a more subtle general condition which contained all physical forms in potential. This is analogous to crystals emerging out of solution. The perception of salt in sea water is dependent on the senses of the perceiver. Some forms of life have not descended as completely as others and thus retained more plasticity and because of this they are more adaptable to changes in their surroundings.
Life is and always was everywhere but it is only when it coalesces into gross material forms that it is perceptible to our everyday senses.
Convergent evolution is explicable not just by occupation of similar niches but by similar forms coalescing.
I would say that it is difficult, mainly in deciding the parameters. But if you think it’s easy then feel free to make it.
It’s all relative. A thousand pound tuna will take in more oxygen than a one hundred and thirty pound human, but it will need to use up more oxygen in order to survive.
The point is that tuna do not have enough spare energy to allocate to the development and maintenance of large brains precisely because most of their energy is taken up in the processes of staying alive. Compared to tuna humans can and do allocate a greater percentage of expendable energy on brain function compared to locomotion. Our physiology and lifestyle ensures that we can do this.
Tuna can increase their oxygen uptake by swimming faster but this in turn uses more oxygen. It’s a trade-off.
The vast majority of genetic duplications we know about are controlled processes that have been designed to happen. That I do know.
Well I got over one and a half million hits for inexact matches. For the exact match I got no hits, not even the one from here.
Hox genes locations are relatively straightforward for segmented creatures such as insects and they become more complicated for more complex creatures like ourselves. The whole reflected in the parts.
I read that. Isn’t that a moot point though, Since aquatic animals acquired air-breathing on dozens of independent occasions?
Then it isn’t clear to me what you were arguing for with your point about “manipulative abilities”. Did you stop defending your claim that a terrestrial life style was essential to the development of self consciousness and rational thought?
True enough, but may I remind you that it was YOU that maintained that the sequences could not possibly be homologues? If you dismiss the most parsimonious explanations, then the burden of proof also falls on you to show that something inexplicable has occurred.
This is trivial info, Charlie. No one has claimed that water has a higher oxygen content that air. Quite the opposite you need 260 liters of water at 10 ppm oxygen to equal the amount of oxygen in 1 liter of air at 1 atm pressure. The rarified air at altitude is not the reason why a human cannot lounge on top of Mt. Everest for a week unlike a beachside resort at sea level. It is the partial pressure of oxygen that is the key parameter that you are missing. On the top of Mt.Everest the partial pressure of oxygen is nearly that of the partial pressure of oxygen in human blood. there is little to no driving ‘force’ to diffuse oxygen from the air into the blood.
Some spiders rebuild their webs regularly. The webs are not copies of each other but they are built to the same underlying specifications.
That is a possible scenario. It is quite possible that sequences can be transmitted horizontally via viruses. But does that explain all so called retroviruses?
I disagree that they beleive it is more difficult to extract oxygen from water. While more energy may be required it is trivial in comparison to extraction efficiency. Fish can extract 80% of the oxygen in water in a single pass over the gills. A very efficient process. Also some fishes, e.g. tuna, can ram ventilate which is a passive means of moving water across the gills with a marked decrease in energy required to move water across the gills. This has been measured and documented in various respirometry experiments the authors also apparently slipped a decimal point instead of 3% it is closre to 0.3%, e.g., 260 liters of water (10 ppm) equates to oxygen content of 1 liter air (21% O2 @ 1 atm).
These are not metaphors. They are examples of like processes.
It is not the percentage of oxygen that determines the uptake, it is the amount of available oxygen per unit volume.
Of course it does Charlie. There are passive means of moving water over gills that fish utilize quite frequently, i.e., ram ventilation. Can you show/demonstrate the metabolic demand of moviing water over gills versus moving air tidally in lungs? People don’t breathe air for ‘free’ it also comes at a cost. I think you’ll find that the difference is quite small and not relevant to the issue at hand. The issue at hand centers on the partial pressure of oxygen in the media of concern not the oxygen content of the media.
Yes, a thousand lb tuna will use more energy than a 140 lb human. How about a 130 lb tuna versus a 130 lb human? What are the oxygen demands of both? You need to be able to supply these numbers to support your, incorrect, notion. If you don’t have the numbers how did you come to the concusion you made? Wishful thinking I would guess.
No it isn’t the content that matters. it is the partial pressure of oxygen that is key.
I’m sure these devices can give a lot of data. But that doesn’t alter the fact that it takes less effort to extract equal amounts of oxygen from the air than it does from water.
We’ll need some numbers here, charlie. Gut feelings don’t count and are often wrong, i.e., oxygen content versus partial pressure issue.
Humans have no choice in how much energy is devoted to any physiologicla process nor do tuna. How much energy does a human use running versus a tuna swimming at a comparable speed? Put a figure to your claims!
No, this is wrongheaded thinking. tuna can switch to ram ventilation which is a reduction in metabolic demand and thus a reduction in oxygen needed to supply energy for ventilation. This has been measured and documented.
How much ‘effort’ (what are effort units?) does it take to extract 80% of oxygen from water in a single pass over the gills versus 5% oxygen from air using tidal breathing? Put a number to it, Charlie otherwise you are just guessing. Use whatever amount of oxygen (mass) you wish in your calculations. For extra credit include both ram ventilation and buccal movements for comparision of oxygen extraction costs/demands.
For those who imagine that human designs are superior to anything else produced by nature take a look at this video, ‘Termite Architecture | Trials Of Life | BBC Earth’.
A termite mound is the respiration system of the colony just as individual termites have their individual similar respiratory system. The whole reflected in the parts.
Termites can build structures like these because they have a group wisdom. Human conscious wisdom is inferior but it has been condensed into the individual from a past group wisdom. Our individual wisdom is a very young wisdom and so is not very well developed.
Seems like we’re doing ok nonetheless.
Charlie, here is an example of what data I am asking you to provide:
ENERGETIC COST OF ACTIVE BRANCHIAL VENTILATION IN THE SHARKSUCKER, ECHENEIS NAUCRATES
https://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/103/1/185.full.pdf
They’re like metaphors though, you know, like, meta-metaphors
Demonstrating your poor grasp of the reasons why Hox gene multiples are thought to be duplicates – paralogs, in the jargon – and not ‘linguistic blocks’ used independently. Typing a gene sequence into BLAST is a better way of analysing gene relationships – unsophisticated, but still informative. Gene order is also important.
From now on, I think rather than indulge your metaphors I will just say ‘Bad Analogy’ to any and all. They illustrate nothing, serving only as rabbit holes.
We are segmented creatures too, and our Hox genes map precisely onto those of insects, in both chromosmal order and approximate sequence identity. We happen to have multiple copies, which affect development in additional, subtle ways. If the multiple copies aren’t true duplicates, what mechanism led to their common identity, which parallels that in the rest of the genomes in which they sit?
Argumentum ad sloganum
Bad Analogy.
It doesn’t need to. It’s explaining a sequence that sticks out like a sore thumb in the cat phylogeny, against the background of the rest of the genome, or morphological proxies. By assuming common descent of the sequence, we can type it as of viral origin, and identify the cladistic origin at which the putative transfer arose, and its direction. Gene analysis is a powerful tool; Sheldrakian ‘repeat causation’, not so much.
They are examples of nothing-like processes.
Sorry, I’ve lost the thread here, what point is moot?
Did I say it was essential? Moving out of the water and into the air provides the potential for the freedom required to acquire independent consciousness. Aquatic living allows for certain freedoms, but they are not as wide ranging as the freedom afforded by terrestrial living.
I didn’t say they could not possibly be homologues. I was questioning the feasibility of that being the case.
Yes differential pressure is a factor. But as pressure is directly proportional to density at a constant temperature it has everything to do with the rarified air.
Then why did they say, “much more metabolic energy is required to extract O2 from water than from air”
I have said already that “gills are very efficient gas exchange systems and they need to be”.I’m pretty sure that in general they are more efficient than lungs at extracting oxygen. But weighing that against the difference in oxygen content between air and water it is still more difficult to get an equivalent amount of oxygen into the blood that by breathing air.
I’m happy to agree with your figures.
I see you have now supplied a link to a paper on energy costs which I’ve now read. So I’ll be discussing it as we go along.
It was my impression that small differences count for a great deal when it comes to Darwinian evolution.
Not being a scientist or an expert in this field I have to trust what the experts say. But if I were to have a stab at making a comparison between me lounging here on my couch and a tuna of equal weight to me going about its business in the ocean, I know which one I would choose when deciding who was expending the most energy on physical activities.
And the pressure depends on the density
How right you are. I looked up brain to body weigh thinking that humans would come out on top. How wrong was I? The winner in that competition turns out to be a fish! Mormyrinae can claim that honour for relative weight and energy consumption.
I do have a choice on whether to run or not, a tuna has no choice but to swim.
That doesn’t alter the fact that increasing their speed from say 10 knots to 40 knots will take an increase of energy consumption. From here
And
Thanks for that link. It actually gives figures of the sort you are looking to me to provide. They say:
Between three and five percent is close to, but greater than, one to two percent.
The Peters’ elephantnose fish I linked to above is a classic example of a one-sided evolution. So much of its brain energy is allocated to dealing with electroreception that it leaves little room for anything else.
Yes. This is a good example of the way in which we are attempting to emancipate ourselves from the earth and its forces. We have moved from the water into the atmosphere and now we are beginning to go even further by getting above the atmosphere to explore space beyond. Moving from a horizontal position to an upright stance was a step in that direction.
The use of metaphors is ubiquitous in our language today. Just about every post I read contains metaphors.
partial pressure is the absolute key factor. A high oxygen content at low pressure is no more effective at promoting oxygen diffusion across a membrane than low content at low pressure. Content is not the issue in oxygen extraction from a medium the partial pressure is..
I don’t know why people make wrongheaded comments likely ignorance is a contributing factor.
so?
Sure it does but how does that compare with the human increase their locomotion speed? Here is a hint in fish increased swimming speed leads to a decrease in cardiac energy use with a simultaneous increase in cardiac output. So a tuna swimming at 40 knots switches to ram ventilation (lowered energy cost) and increases cardiac output (with a lower cardiac energy demand). In short swimming faster does not lead to a linear increase in energy demand.
Can the same be said for a human who goes from a moderate jogging speed to running faster?
to shorten this conversation the answer is no. Humans fight gravity and fish do not have that negative influence on their physiology. with fish iincreased swimming speed passivily increases venous cardiac return so the heart can increase cardiac output with a lower energy demand. Fish beats human again!
yes in this example there appears to be a 1 percent difference in metabolic cost of oxygen extraction between fish and humans. Pretty trivial difference given your original stance of the great advantages that humans have living on land and breathing air with its higher oxygen content.
Okay. But I’ll probably carry on using these analogies.
Segmentation is part of our makeup. This is obvious from the axial skeleton.Many lower animals take this segmentation to the extreme in a one-sided way. Notice the endoskeletal qualities of our axial skeleton. How the central nervous system has external bony protection.
The hox genes of insects are a limited set of our hox genes.
A slogan that bears repeating.
Gene analysis only shows us the sequences of individual organisms. It doesn’t tell us how they ended up there.
“To see a World in a Grain of Sand”.
Increasing the oxygen content will still increase the amount that is diffused up to the point where the pressures equalise. Obviously after that when it becomes a negative differential then no amount of oxygen will be absorbed.
And so we can marvel at the respiratory system of birds when we hear that Ruppell’s griffon vulture can fly at altitudes of thirty seven thousand feet above sea level. How do they mange to get oxygen to diffuse?
And then there is the opposite extreme:
How do they withstand the pressure?
No an increase in oxygen content won’t cut it alone. You can have low oxygen content, e.g., 10 ppm in water, and still have adequate diffusion of oxygen so long as there is a differential in partial pressure. Even pure oxygen w/o a partial pressure gradient will not diffuse across a membrane. Content does not matter. You aren’t alone in having difficulty grasping this concept naive students struggle with it briefly as well.
Correct. REgardless of oxygen content no diffusion w/o a partial pressure gradient.
How do you think they manage this feat? Humans sure can’t!
I woud venture a guess here that their hemoglobin oxygen-equilibrium curves are hyperbolic in shape rather than the sigmoidal shape found for human hemoglobin. The hyperbolic shape demonstrates that very low partial pressures are all that is required to load the hemoglobin with oxygen. for example myoglobin has a hyperbolic oxygen-equilibrium curve and a partial pressure of 2 mmHg is all that is needed to promote oxygen loading. Carp and other cyprinids, e.g. Sacramento blackfish, also have hyperbolic oxygen-equilibrium curves and can saturate their hemoglobin with oxygen at very low dissolved oxygen levels, e.g. 2-3 ppm O2. Trout, on the other hand, have sigmoidal oxygen-equilibrium curves and will quickly die of hypoxia in waters that carp thrive in.
Charlie, do you think the partial pressure of dissolved oxygen in water, at sea level, is different dependent on if the water has 10 pp or 2 ppm? (yes this is a quiz to see if you’ve been paying attention)
How do walruses, whale, and elephant seals manage to spend time at such depths? An eephant seal exhales before diving and at depths the lungs are squashed flat and reinflate once they resurface. The key is hemoglobin pxygen affinity as well as hematocrit values. Since critters are mostly water once you eliminate the air in the air spaces there is nothing to compress. It is the reason human arms/legs aren’t crushed at depth when diving.
Your claims are like soft butter, whenever I squeeze them a bit, they become all soft and change shape*.
It makes little difference. This novel ‘potential for the freedom required to acquire independent consciousness’ claim lacks support just like all of your previous claims. What measure quantifies this potential? What data did you gather to support your claim? As far as I am concerned this is just more story telling.
* man, I suck at metaphors
And another claim gone all soft. Sure, they could be homologs but you “question the feasability”? On what grounds? How do you justify your dismissal of several plausible explanations?
You have nothing, but you wave a tiny gap in our knowledge as support for your view.
From the article, ‘Comparative Physiology of Energy Metabolism: Fishing for Endocrine Signals in the Early Vertebrate Pool’:
Humans are free from the need to be constantly on the move and so energy can be directed to more cerebral activities. Tuna possess ‘retia mirabilia (literally: wonderful nets)’ as an efficient form of heat exchanger, we possess a rete mirabilia of attributes which gives us an unpresedented emancipation from nature.
Tuna spend most of their energy on the physical activity that keeps them alive. Humans spend an inordinate amount of energy on the spiritual activity of thinking as I have been doing here. And a major reason why I can do this is that plants and secondarily animals such as tuna have already spent a great deal of energy arranging in a suitable way the materials I need to consume. In this way I am not required to engage in the processes of manufacturing these materials from their basic elements. This task has already been done for me so I can get on with my spiritual activities.
It might not be linear but swimming faster means expending more energy. See here
(U3 in the equation is the velocity cubed.) So however you want to say it increasing swimming speed will require an increase in energy output.
So fish locomotion is more efficient than human locomotion. Humans are pretty poor when it comes to competing physically with other animals. But due to our spiritual abilities we can out-compete most other animals by a long way. The fastest speedboats will leave tuna in their wake within seconds.
Tuna may be experts at converting physical energy from one form to another. But humans can go one step further and convert physical energy into spiritual energy and by this means manipulate physical energy in so many ways. And we could only achieve this by crawling onto the land, pulling ourselves upright and freeing our brains and hands from the earthly duties that animals still allocate to them.
It is not trivial when we compare the uses to which the available energy is put.
From here
Our way of life, our constitution, our metabolic needs, all contribute to the fact that we can devote so much time and energy to the activity of thinking.
You have just said the same thing that I said. When I said there will be no flow when the pressures equalises I was talking about partial pressure. I was saying that there would be no partial pressure difference at this point. Increasing the oxygen content while keeping the overall pressure constant will obviously also increase the oxygen partial pressure. People with COPD are given oxygen which means they are inhaling air that had a higher oxygen content per unit area of their alveoli.
Yes because the latter has less of a share of the total pressure which I assume to be the same in both cases.
Goethean science is a science of qualities not a qualitative science. Any figures or calculations I give normally come from the experts in qualitative science that I consult. Goethean science does not build models it observes directly.
We do not need to quantify the outcome of terrestrial evolution compared to aquatic evolution because we can observe it directly. There is no evidence of any aquatic life forms exploring the reaches of space beyond our earth.
When you suck at these metaphors, what do they taste like? 🙂
I keep an open mind about homologs just as I do about examples of convergent evolution.
No, that is incorrect. Content does not matter. The partial pressure of oxygen in the two scenarios I outlined are the same.
You have failed in your cerebral excercise and it is obvious that you’ve not been paying attention. If you are unable to understand such a simple concept, as you repeatedly demonstrate, why should anyone consider your other musings as having any credibility?