Week 4 - Evolution/Stories

However trite the saying may be, I feel like the more we look the less we know. Every question we ask is met with more questions that tend to confuse and complicate the original question. Are we errors? My section talked extensively about this question, but inevitably the question made us reexamine how we define evolution (a question no one was really capable of tackling, and a question I could not even begin to wrap my fingers around). Unfortunately, without these questions there would be not drive to search for answers and without answers we as a species, a term we could also never fully define, would be lost (lost in the sense that we would never know or come to any sort of understanding about the world surrounding us). Scattered throughout the early chapters in Dennett’s book he poses numerous questions, all of which we assume he will answer within the confines of his book. I will be interested reading this book to see whether or not Dennett is actually able to answer these questions, or simply create new ones (confusing the already confused story of evolution).

Tu-Anh Vu's post said some things that were eerily similar to some of my own recent thoughts, like, "The relative time we spent on Earth is small compared with the explosion of the universe." I mean, it's incredible when you really sit down and think about how small each of us is in the scheme of things. I often find myself feeling a little bit sad and low after completing the readings for this class. Some of the statistics that Professor Grobstein included in his lecture last Tuesday got me feeling even more tiny - like the fact that human history has only existed for about 300 human generations, whereas the galaxy has existed without us for something like 3,000 human generations. So here we are in our class, 1 or 2 human generations in a room, and we're nothing more than a brief flash in everything that makes up the history of our world. It's a sobering thought when you look around at all of the "big" things we worry about and you realize that in about 10 human generations our actions will have a small impact on the world that they live in.

I want to say that when looking at things from an evolutionary perspective that maybe we do have an impact. To me, evolution seems to be an accumulation of successful characteristics and traits that are passed down slowly from one generation to the next, being slightly tweaked here and there. Some characteristics get eliminated along the way, others are created, and in the end you find yourself looking at something far different from its original form. Maybe in an odd way then evolution helps me to be optimistic about my "point" here on Earth, and helps me to think that somewhere in my DNA is a tiny little trait that will make a difference for my children, grandchildren, or great-great-great-great grandchildren. I can't be certain, but it's the best I can do to prevent myself from being overwhelmed by what sometimes seems like a definite lack of a "point" to our existence here and now.

For anyone that is interested... this Wednesday, February 21st , Intervarsity Christian Fellowship will be hosting Tae Hoo Lee who is a professor of world religion at Temple University. He will be speaking on the topic "If People Believe Something It Must Be True". It might be interesting to hear a different perspective on the concept of truth even if the conversation focuses more on religion. The meeting will take place here at Bryn Mawr in the Quita Woodward Room from 7:00-8:30.

Okay, so we've finished Myer and are now working our way through Dennett.  It wasn't until Thursday's discussion that I realized that I had never actually spent very much time wondering about the why.  When it was brought up, I realized that this was probably because it is a WAY difficult question.  Throughout Mayr's book there is not why, there is only a serious dissection of the how.  My current question is why do we need to know the why? If it is such a difficult question, what are we going to gain from it? I suppose we will never know until we discover the true why. 

The problem I see with the why, and of course, the term "problem" is completely relative, is that it is an enormous can of worms? Why do we need a why? Is it simply a matter of human curiosity, or will we truly benefit somehow from learning.

And as far as the error discussion, a point that I made in my paper, is that we must remember that we are a PART of evolution.  Because we are a part of it, we cannot assume that we can control it simply because we think we understand it.  While it is unlikely, our environment could suddenly change and we won't be able to react, because we are not genetically prepared for it.  It is also incredibly important to point out that our governments, and our ability to form a social heirarchy is only our response to the world around us.  It isn't going to save us from evolution, it is only keeping us thriving now and it doesn't provide us with a security for the future.

For those of you not in Professor Grobstein’s section on Thursday, we had a very interesting discussion about whether or not evolution necessarily moves towards greater complexity.  In the end I think we agreed that organisms became more complex in the sense that they move toward more complicated combinations of specialized cells, but also that in doing this, organisms lose some of their original potential to diversify on cellular and evolutionary levels.  I found this idea of specialization versus potential very compelling in an evolutionary sense, and I also wonder if this idea could be in some ways extended to the development of literature. 

In a sense literature has undergone an evolutionary process as well, beginning with the basic elements of writing and storytelling and transforming into the immense variety of approaches seen today.  The oral traditions and original forms of language possessed immense potential to diversify and specialize into the forms of literature used today.  The modern specialization of genres, styles, and modes of discourse can be extremely particular.  One of my personal favorites is “biomythography,” a category that encompasses so many other genres and yet has been singled out in modern literature as a specific and distinct genre.  While these myriad categories can be interpreted by each individual writer, there is still a sense of imposed specialization and order that permeates the way literature is viewed.  As literature becomes more and more complex and specific, it can lose some of the potential to diversify that more simplified forms once possessed.  In this sense, I think there can be some parallels between evolutionary development and the development of modern literature.

Elise

Firstly, after reading some chapters of Dennet, I am struck but how much of what he brings into question has been debated by us in class. These issues are evidently very apparent from the offset.

Secondly, the Hubble Deep Field image, I am reminded of the fact that they pointed Hubble Space Telescope towards that area because there wasn't going to be must other research going on during the Christmas period. The director could a substantial period of his discretionary time towards studying galaxies. The usefulness of this pursuit can be called into question.

It wasn't directly useful (cosmology has always had doubtful direct uses), but it revealed a lot about the origin of the galaxy.

We have argued that evolution is about usefulness. We have called it adaptability, it is equally translatable as what is useful in particular environments.

Yet I don't think that we should only be aiming to achieve usefulness. I think that it was William James who believed in the cash value of things. The question then is, should we be seeking usefulness or something else. Metaphysical I know. And horribly inconclusive.

It is so difficult to know whether a species is more or less successful in the evolutionary process. For some reason I really want there to be a scale to judge this. What criterias should be used to decide the success rate of a species. Should it be population count, number differing abilities, complexity in genetic/molecular makeup? Perhaps once we decide on what qualities is most important in deciding success, we can estimate what direction evolution tends to go towards.

Though evolution is very convincing, there is still one thing that befuddles me about it. When we examine the numerous accomplishments of humans and compare that to those of other species, we can't help but feel that we are perhaps affected by evolution in a different way--that evolution accelerated within our species. I can't logically pinpoint why I feel like we are slightly above the normal evolution rules or less dictated by the direction (whatever that may be) that evolution is inclined to take, but I just feel that we are different somehow. Maybe this is just all in the head. Maybe its too uncomfortable to accept that I am simply a random profuct of a much larger project, that i was never intended but just here because im here.

 -Trinh

In class on Thursday, we tried to define evolutionary error.  It was quiet difficult for us and many of us kept going back to defining an error as being unable to reproduce, unable to survive in the world on its own (Better stated by Caroline as being self-destructive), an aberration.  First off, we cannot look at an evolutionary error from through analyzing an individual, because evolution does not effect an individual, it only effects a group.  Evolution is a change in a population’s gene pool; therefore an error cannot be classified as an individual’s phenotype that is disadvantageous to survival, it must be something prominent throughout the population.  Furthermore, because the environment, at least today, I changing so rapidly, I feel that evolution is having a more difficult time keeping up.  Technology is changing the world around us so fast, that evolution is becoming too slow to allow for extensive adaptation.  This would mean that more and more evolutionary errors exist and will continue to exist.  Finally, because mutations are random there will always be errors, but natural selection has the job of weeding them out.  Because evolution takes generations to take effect, there will always be many errors.  Also, we have to be very careful when classifying something as an error, because that trait could be a side effect of a very positive trait.  For example, self-destruction is a negative phenotype, but may be linked to the same gene that allows us to think creatively and solve difficult problems.

As for the birth control and the dog issue, is it really evolution?  I believe so.  Everything impacts everything else, and as Tou said, the women who choose to use birth control and so forth are more likely to bring a child into the world where the parent will be able to take care of them financially and be more mature, therefore supporting positive evolution.  Everything we as humans do affects our evolution, and many other species around us.  For example, 500 years ago, the people that survived the longest, were those that had the strongest immune system.  Now, because of health care advances, you don’t need to have a strong immune system, all you need is to make enough money to pay for the best healthcare.  This change in environment effects evolution.  Birth control may be changing evolution as well.  If a group a people with certain genetically based phenotypic traits are more likely to use birth control and end up having less children in their lives, then their genes will make up a smaller and smaller portion of the gene pool generation after generation.

Interestingly enough, this reminds me of a movie I recently saw, Idiocracy.  For those of you who have not seen it, this movie takes place in the future, and is about how the human population has become much less intelligent due to evolution.  The theory is based on the notion that people that are more intelligent tend to plan their families and have less children, while less intelligent people tend to have many more children, because they do not use contraceptives.  Over 500 years, this cycle causes the entire population to have an extremely low IQ.  At first, I thought that this was a highly improbable due to the selective advantage intelligence had, but then I realized, that it doesn’t matter how long one lives, it only matters how much they reproduce which determines the effect on evolution.

I have so much more going through my mind, but I will have it for next time.

After Thursday's discussion with Professor Dalke, I've been thinking a lot about the concept of individuals being "errors", and I've come to the conclusion that I think that we all are. 

One thought that has always scared me is if scientists find out what makes us errors, will they try and fix us? I'm not talking about minor errors, I'm talking about bigger ones, controversial ones, such as being gay (if you consider that an "error", which some people do). Or, what if people begin to think that emotion is flawed and find a way to correct it?

I've also thought a lot about the social impact of these corrections. For example, if people in the future find a genetic reason for being gay, and they come to an agreement that it is a fixable error, then they are now impacting an entire community instead of an individual. 

After this week's reading, I have started to think about it another way. If all patterns of human culture are "artifacts", if they are created no differently than organisms, then what is the difference in their evolution?        

After thinking about evolution, trying to define it and realizing it's hard to agree one on definition, I started to wonder.. if evolution brings about thoughts of some kind of change.. if evolution is a term being used to explain the change that has taken place from nothing, to dinosaurs, to the little mammals left, to where we are now.. I started to wonder if evolution has to go in a more advancing direction for it to be evolution. If, as we grow up, we develop bad habits- habits that are harmful (granted that it is said evolution happens on larger level), would this still be evolution? I think it would have to be.. assuming that these habits are considered negative and bad now, who's to say in the future, with time, the effects will still be negative?.. the thought that we'll never know at the time just how useful something is, is an interesting concept.. we live as we think would be best- we, consciously and unconsciously, evolve with more conditions experienced, more choices made, more development.. yet we don't really know how these choices will effect us, let alone our population, in the future.

As for Mayr.. while reading his book, his authoritative tone bothered me, but it was interesting to read. Rightly or wrongly, I think the tone bothered me because.. it seems like his book was about collected evidence, and restating Darwin's stories..just putting it all together in one place. I think, the majority of what he said was backed up with what he would call evidence- in the form of fossils, or in some other form (with the exception of a lot from the latter portion of the book with unfounded claims..).. I think this bothers me so much, because, he chose to collect all of this together and write about it, probably, because he believes it so strongly.. but he's not the one who created it, nor is he the one to credit for discovering all of the "evidence", without which, the whole concept of evolution would never have gained so much support.. but, I guess this goes along with the idea of us all starting off as babies.. then we go to school, because more interested in something, study it, go to school for it.. and then we're "experts"- if such a thing really exists (or if the word is useful at all), in the field. Nearly anyone could have chosen the field to go into- likely would have had different reactions, different responses to the material they have learned, but would have been "taught" (with the exception of classes not targeted towards teaching facts, like this one), the same material.. it's similar to Mayr's saying 2 and 2 is 4, backing it up, preaching it.. when possibly, it would have been more advantageous, to the public, for him to have come up with his own idea, his own method, his own theory.. and brought something new to everyone.

One of the major things I remember from AP Bio in eleventh grade was "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." Our teacher beat it into our heads. He said it about nine-billion times and based his whole teachings about embryology upon it. Mayr mentions it in his book in like the 2nd chapter. When I was reading it, I was like, Oh look, I remember that. I remembered the phrase and that it had something to do with evolution and embryology but I wasn't exactly sure what it was about. So with lack of a better topic, I chose to write my paper about it. I was going to mention how I was taught it in high school, etc. I started my search using wikipedia to get a general planning of my paper without looking up facts yet. After reading about it on wikipedia, I discovered that the statement was false! First I was immediately confused and chose to rely on "real" sources such as textbooks. I picked up my search in the biology textbook section of Collier. The first few text books I picked up had either the exact phrase in the glossary or had it under ontogeny in the text. Then I started not being able to find it in other text books. I could not find the phrase anywhere in texts that were dated after 1971. And of the earlier books I found it in, they stated the only reason they mentioned it was to make readers aware that the phrase was incorrect if readers had come across it in earlier texts.

I was genuinely shocked at my findings. I immediately called all of my classmates in highschool that I kept in touch with. All of them remembered the phrase. (He brow-beat us, I tell you). And the ones who remembered what exactly it was, recalled that he was in favor of it. He taught it to us saying it was true. Lacking my highschool text book, I can't remember what the text said about it but all of the biology text books I came across provide evidence against the literal translation of the statement.

The picture of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field and the conversation that followed was mind blowing.  I cannot imagine the amount of time that we were looking at in that picture and the amount of time that evolution is framed in.  I do believe in evolution and I do believe that scientists are getting it “less wrong” with the story of evolution.  However, we do not know what caused evolution to start, or rather what caused the beginning of the big bang.  I still feel that there is (or was) some outside creator that caused the whole thing to start.  I am not sure if I believe the creator started the big bang and then left, evolution being what followed this, or whether everything including evolution was planned.  Okay so my point is that I do not think science will ever be able to disprove that there was a creator that started the whole process.  We just cannot disprove this.  Maybe it seems kind of simple, the logic, but if the creator did not want us to know, then really we would not know.  Many may think that simply believing in this creator, when we have gotten pretty close to figuring evolution and everything out is silly.  This irrational thought is simple, and one is just looking for meaning; however a more religion person may say it is faith.

Reporting in (as per usual) on the news from the Times: Monday's paper included a most relevant book review of David Lindley's Uncertainty: Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr and the Struggle for the Soul of Science:

"'Uncertainty' examines the critical juncture at which classical scientific methods became obsolete and the most radical theories began to be outside the realm of proof...'a gap had opened up between what a theory said was the full and correct picture of the physical world and what an experiment could in practice reveal of that world'....As Wolfgang Pauli once said...'It's much easier to find one's way if one isn't too familiar with the magnificent unity of classical physics'....the Heisenberg uncertainty principle...'has become a touchstone, a badge of authority' ...because it can be used to make scientific truth sound less than all-powerful. Treated that way, 'the uncertainty principle makes scientific knowledge itself less daunting to the nonscientists and more like the slippery, elusive kind of knowing we daily grapple with.'"

Continuing to flow with my theme of curiosity from last week, the subject of clumpy diversity pops into my head from our last class. We know that it is because of clumpy diversity that certain organisms can never possess a certain blend of characteristics (for example, an organism that has an exoskeleton and a dorsal nervous system -- no, no!).... but it is always fun to be curious...

Imagine: a jellyfish, a spineless Cnidarian, with an exoskeleton similar to that of an insect. It's crazy, I know, but think about how that protective structure/support would alter the lifestyle of that animal... Would it be as easily adaptable for their water homes? Would their "sting" play as much of a vital role as it once had?

Imagine a big, heterotrophic plant (besides the Venus fly trap) -- basically a plant that relies on other plants for its food or a plant that eats other organisms that eat plants. How would our world be different given this situation? The entire concept of the food chain would be thrown into a tizzle. Animals, such as insects, would then not only have to worry about larger animals eating them, but they would also need to watch out for those organism-eating plants -- and not risk their lives by trying to eat those plants OYE VEY! How complicated!

My point to these examples is that even the smallest alteration to an organism has severe consequences. There is no such thing as only 1 evolutionary change that occurs within a species or population. 1 major change triggers a "domino effect" of other minor changes/ complications within an organism's adaptation and ability to survive.

            Wow! That’s my response to the Carl Sagan quote Prof. Dalke just posted: "I think if we ever reach the point where we think we thoroughly understand who we are and where we came from, we will have failed.....[The search for who we are] goes with a courageous intent to greet the universe as it really is, not to foist our emotional predisposition on it but to courageously accept what our explorations tell us."  I couldn’t agree any more! I think that is what we are doing together in this class, I think that’s what science does, and I think that that is how we are constantly searching, and re-creating stories that are less wrong, to help us understand the universe and world.

            I also woke up in the middle of the night (last night), thinking about some things…One was from someone’s comment in class yesterday.  It was on the topic that evolution makes mistakes, and the fact that some of us are mistakes.  My view on this is that if evolution’s goal is to reproduce, then would people who are not able to reproduce mistakes?  I think that’s a really harsh way to think of things.  And what exactly is a mistake?? It seems to be too subjective and arbitrary….

            And to add to the evolution bit, I really don’t think it is driven towards being better or towards perfection.  I’m inclined to think that all of this is a figment of the human imagination and creation, and because it is our creation, we are the ones who are striving for the idea of being better and perfected….otherwise, there is clear evidence that the process of evolution does NOT always lead to perfection.