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.
Talking about convergent evolution, there have been several cases of fish acquiring lungs but none of birds or mammals acquiring gills. There is a general trend towards terrestrial life. Apart from vertebrates insects are a good example.
And as for the relative ease of obtaining oxygen from the air. When fish are staved of oxygen they come to the surface and gulp air. If a human is trapped in a sunken ship where the oxygen levels are getting dangerously low they wouldn’t think for one minute that submerging their head under water and gulping water would help them in any way.
Sorry Charlie, but when it comes to processes that have a stochastic component, statistics beats Goethean science. A single outcome tells us virtually nothing.
That contradicts your earlier statement that you questioned the feasibility of the butterfly and sea snail polypeptide sequences being homologs. Have you changed your mind?
Not bad. A bit like analollipops.
Aquatic animals have the benefit of counteracting the force of gravity by the buoyancy of the water and they use this to their advantage in locomotion. Humans have internalised this force to our advantage in the area that is important to us. We can have such large brains due to the fact that they are submerged in cerebrospinal fluid.
From here
Without this buoyancy the weigh of the brain would damage the underlying nerves. The brain is relatively more free of the earthly force of gravity. What is an advantage for aquatic life in general becomes advantageous to the human individual.
No this is incorrect. While there are numerous fish species that use a variety of methods to breathe air what ‘you’ are observing is fish, under hypoxic condition, will attempt to breathe the water at the air/water interface. This layer has more oxygen available that water at depth in hypoxic waters. Another case of failed ‘spiritual musings’ attempting to force fit the world to a preconceived notion.
We all know what they say about statistics 🙂
And there is always the latest theory of statistics to hit the news, the Trump Effect. Reducing the number of tests determining an occurrence reduces the number of incidents of that given occurrence and thus the problem is solved, just like that.
All it would take is for a plant or two to contain the same toxin and I’d be closer to being convinced.
I think I know the ones. The ones with similey faces on them.
Are you saying that there will be no exchange of oxygen by means of air passing over the gills in these cases? I’ll need to do a bit more reading on this.
But meanwhile from here
You have to know what is being measured?
That is not statistics, that is faulty logic. The temperature outside is the same whether you look at the thermometer or not. The more testing the better the sample . The statistical question is , what is the correlation of the increase in testing to the increase in positive cases.
Oxygen is toxic as well as beneficial so organisms have to carefully balance the amount of oxygen they ingest.
newton,
Don’t you think that Trump would like to use statistics to his own advantage regardless of the facts?
That references fsh adapted, via various mechanisms, to breathe air in chronically hypoxic environment. Some of these species are obligate air breathers and will drown if cutoff from surfacing to breathe air.
Yes, that is what I am saying. The gills will collapse into a pulpy mess and nearly all surface area will be unavailable for gas exchange. There are some species, e.g., walking catfish, that have specialized structures to support the gill filiments in the presence of air. For the vast majority of fish that option isn’t available.
Indeed!
Yes there are fish that are adapted to air breathing. Are there any cases of air breathers adapting to water breathing? If not why not?
A fish can have its mouth out of the water taking in air while its gills are still submerged or even partially submerged. Either way the oxygen in that area is coming via the air. when the fish takes in the oxygen from the surface water it is mixing with and being replenished from the air. Fish need the atmosphere as much as we do.
Indeed! indeed!
You will have to rephrase this. I can’t parse what point you are grasping at here.
There are several species that can breathe both water and air. Seems you have the mistaken impression that evolution acts with some trajectory in mind. that is wrongheaded thinking. What would prevent a organism from adapting to breathing water over air?
PeterP,
I wonder if Charlie knows how oxygen became a constituent of Earth atmosphere and what mainly sustains it now.
Some people use hammers to drive in screws, that doesn’t mean there is something wrong with hammers or screws.
If you watch this video entitled, ‘Wonderful Fish Gathering & Air Gulping scenes in the pond’, you will see that their mouths break the surface but their gills are well below the surface. I have seen goldfish do this. Why would they do this if they are not getting oxygen from the air?
Anyway this is a minor point and I’m happy to move on.
It does seem that lungs were being prepared long before tetrapods were said to have ventured onto dry land:
And coelacanths had forgone the chance to venture onto the land, preferring to remain in their aquatic environment:
If they had moved onto the land their lungs would have developed further while their gills became vestigial. As it was it was their lungs which became vestigial, they remained in the seas and so the availability of niches became more restrictive .
Perhaps not in mind.. Evolution has a trajectory in the same way that a zygote has a trajectory towards the adult form. The whole reflected in the parts.
Nothing but the choices made by the organism. There seems to be plenty examples of water breathing progressing to air breathing, but no examples of air breathing progressing to water breathing. It’s as if there is an inherent direction 🙂
I think I’ve spoken about this a few times since I’ve been here.
This is from a post of mine a few years ago:
This started when Corneel said
He is wrong to believe that Goethean science is in competition with standard science and he is wrong to believe that Goethean science relies on a single outcome.
Statistics takes multiple datum points in order to produce a single outcome, the average trend. Goethean science takes a single subject and observes it under as many different conditions as is possible.
They are coming from opposite directions. Statistics looks at the parts in order to determine the behaviour of the whole. Goethean science looks at the whole in order to determine the relationship of its parts. They are both legitimate approaches and both require the observer to work without bias, or to prejudge the results..
I’ve already explaiined this to you, Charlie. Instead of repeating my self let me ask you to document something here. What is the residence time of the ‘gulp of air’ in the fishes buccal cavity? What is the diffusion time frame of oxygen movement from the air into the water in the buccal cavity? Let’s start there and see how you do in providing the data to support your notion. Your wrong but let’s see how you explain and support your notion.
what akes you think that your misunderstandings are just ‘minor’ points. I would beg to differ and suggest they, your misunderstandings, suggest a profound lack of knowledge which leads to your ‘arrogance of ignorance’ proclamations on many topics you have a little to no grasp of the subject matter.
Yes,, lungfish and their ancestors had functioning lungs and some, today, are obligate air-breathers. Lungs also preceded swimbladders in modern teleosts.
Or, perhaps, coelacanths moved to deeper water, where they continue to reside today, to exploit that niche. Lungs would no longer be necessary, as eyes in cavefish, and regressed to decrease energy requirements for the support of these no longer needed organs.
How many niches are available in the aquatic environment compared to terrestrial environment? You’ll need to put some actual numbers here to support your contention that the aquatic environment has fewer niches than terrestrial environments. I thnk you are just making this up as you go along.
No it doesn’t. traits are just as likely to regress, e.g., internal parasites like tapeworms and eyes in cavefish, as to progress. To believe otherwise is wrongheaded thinking.
do you think that organisms ‘choose’ to evolve various organs? Why don’t humans choose to evolve wiings instead of going to the trouble of producing aircraft to carry them into the heights ‘choosing’ to free themselves from this limited terrestrial existence?
I watched this video by Timothy Spier, a fish ecologist in the Department of Biological Sciences at Murray State University.
The video is called, ‘Short lecture on temperature and ion regulation, plus the stress response in fish’, and in it he said:
This is something I come across a great deal. We don’t know the details of how attributes like these originated but somehow we know that they were “stumbled across”. Those sort of words are used to bolster a belief and have nothing to do with the facts. Should they be used by somebody who is in the business of conveying facts?
Nature seems to have done nothing but stumble into amazing designs throughout its history..
Sorry, I’ve moved on.
This is what happens when you only see the winners.
They may be major points for someone who wishes to focus on the study fish respiration in intimate detail. I have other priorities. It makes little difference to my arguments whether fish get their oxygen directly from the water or indirectly from the atmosphere. One thing I do know is that gills are exquisitely designed for extracting oxygen from the water and also as heat exchangers.
Yes,, lungfish and their ancestors had functioning lungs and some, today, are obligate air-breathers. Lungs also preceded swimbladders in modern teleosts.
Yes, I did read that. Swimbladders evolved from lung tissue.
You have observed the evolution of humans under as many different conditions as possible? You have a time machine and a multiverse at your disposal, have you?
Very well. I will use Goethean science to declare, based on careful observation of this one comment under as many different conditions as is possible, that you know nothing of statistics.
Exactly. Organs atrophy through lack of use. One example is my inability to wiggle my ears, which i’m sure I’ve mentioned before.
All part of the wisdom inherent in nature.
Sorry, I’ve moved on.
Got it! Being unable to support your musings you declare the subject dead and have moved on.
Gills are heat exchangers? Stop the presses! Charlie has stunning new revelations for fisheries research!
Joking aside how do gills act as heat exchangers? Are they meant to warm the oceans waters to a more suitable temperature for the fish?
Why would the organisms choose to have an organ atrophy? Why not keep it around for future use to exploit new and/or additional niches?
It’s not the number of niches that are important, it is the scope of any individual ‘niche’. Some creatures exploit very narrow niches in one or the other environment. species such as giant pandas on land or species of Antarctic icefishes in the sea. One species exploits both environments and also extending into the space above the atmosphere of the earth.
What niche are Anarctic icefishes exploiting that other species aren’t?
The number of niches aren’t important? that seems like a silly proclamation.
What is the ‘scope of a niche’?
Any creature that through evolution finds itself in a narrower niche than its ancestors occupied has actually regressed.The whole could not progress unless it contained parts within which regressed
Why would the whole need regressed parts to progress? That seems like a move towards specialists rather than a generalist lifestyle which seems counterfactual to this claim of yours:
Humans have regressed then according to your criteria.
Their ‘choice’ of habitat and lifestyle dictates, from the organs and structures they do have, which will develop further and which will degenerate through lack of use.
We are tetrapods, so if we had developed wings we would have forfeited the chance to develop our forelimbs into the creative constructors that they are.
Why do you see as trouble inventing and constructing machines such as aircraft? Some people regard such activities as a joy, not trouble.
When you see things in terms of cooperation rather than competition, there are no winners and losers. Only those who sacrifice and those who gain from the sacrifice of others.
I am in the process of observing humans in relation to life as a whole. My knowledge is very limited.
I don’t think you are getting the concept. My knowledge of statistics does not reduce to just one small sentence whether it is accurate or not. You are coming to a judgement of the whole from one single fraction.
You could be right, but confirmation would take a lot more information than a little snippet from here. If you were to substitute ‘declare’ for ‘suspect’ then I would have no problem with your statement.
What proportioon of humans can pilot an aircraft? What proportion of humans have an aircraft available to fly themselves (not as passengers) wherever their whims might take them? Having wings would be much more advantageous for humans to move about the landscape. It isn’t the trouble its the limitations that are imposed on humans for not choosing to have wings. Why couldn’t humans choose to have wings and arms at the same time?
Not if we choose to be hextapods! It’s not like it hasn’t been done before.
What can I say. You’ve convinced me that gills are wonderful structures but they have their limits. And in different species they have different ranges in where they can be used.
Likewise with lungs. Why would humans not choose to have both lungs and gills?
The purpose would have been to disabuse you of your mistaken notion that carp and other species are getting oxygen directly from the air when they are not Some species make a living surviving in hypoxic waters by breathing the oxygen enriched water at the air-water interface. Any air gulped does not oontribute to this oxygen supply. There is insufficient time for oxygen diffusion, in any meaningful amount, to occur in your scenario It is why species, e.g., siamese fighting fish have a labyrinth organ as well as functional gills. It requires tiime for diffusion to occur a simple gulp and expulsion won’t cut it.
I was thinking specifically of the moon fish. Here is an interesting video about this.
The relevant heat exchange is not between the blood and the water, it’s between venous blood and arterial blood using a counter-current system .well known to engineers.
I didn’t choose for the structures required to move my ears to degenerate. They became that way because I paid them no attention whatsoever. Apart from humans animals do not consciously decide on future events.
I expect most scientists would say there is no competition.
Using your example of Trump, seems to me Trump employs a more Gothean scientific view.
He has said his net worth varies depending on how he feels, his impressions .
Perhaps the same applies to cases of the coronavirus. It is the viewer’s perception of the number of cases that is whole , more testing the more cases are exposed. Reduce testing to zero, it reduces number of cases to zero.
Statistics takes multiple datum points in order to produce a single outcome, the average trend.
And so much more.
They are coming from opposite directions. Statistics looks at the parts in order to determine the behaviour of the whole. Goethean science looks at the whole in order to determine the relationship of its parts.
Say climate change, how can you know what the whole is? Doesn’t that assume knowledge of what constitutes the whole , that the whole exists.?
Anything that uses observer dependent factors is inherently biased, the question is how does one account for the individual bias.
Fascinating stuff.
that isn’t the gills as you claimed then is it?
Now another quandry, charlie, is that hemoglobin oxygen affinity is affected by temperature. Generally, an ncrease in temperature will result in decreased affinity for oxygen. so if the gills are the site of oxygen loading then what happens when the ‘cold’ oxygenated blood meets warmer veins, arteries, etc? What keeps the oxygen bound to the hemogobin instead of having it diffuse into plasma and, therefore, not reaching the tissues which need it?
engineers are late to the party or they copied the successes that evolution ‘found’.
but….but…but you said organisms choose to make these evolutionary developments. Are you now backtracking on that claim of yours?
there are several ‘retes’ that have evolved in fishes. from the muscle retes that maintain higher body temperature via conserving heat produced in muscles, to eyeball and brain ‘heaters’ found in numerous pelagic fishes as well as gas glands to inflate swim bladders at depth. Many variations on this theme are found in fish.
I think so as well!! At least it has occupied a substantial amount of my time over the years!
It shows! 😉
I know all that, and I hoped you would recognize that I was parodying the shortcoming of your approach: we only have a single example of a spacefaring species. Just declaring this single example “the whole” doesn’t magically increase the amount of information you can glean from it.
You criticize how undersampling can lead to misleading results, but you base your entire story on a sample size of one.
These fish live permanently in a very cold but stable environment. This may not be unique to them but that is not the point. If the water in which they live varied by more than a few degrees they would not survive. They live on a knife edge of temperature dependence. In that regard their niche is very narrow indeed.
When comparing way of life between individual species and kinds t’s not important.
What is the ‘scope of a niche’?
The range of living conditions, habitats, physical area, food; that sort of thing. Compare a herring gull to a kakapo and the difference in the scope of their niches becomes obvious.