Showing posts with label Lamarck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lamarck. Show all posts

Saturday, September 6, 2014

WHY WE BEHAVE LIKE THIS? (E O M -12)


Swami Vijnananand provided guidance to the teenagers through series of discourses on various subjects. In one such series of discourses he talked about the behavioral aspects. Our mind is expressed through the behavior. “Why one behaves in certain way” and “How should one behave in proper way” were the subjects covered. While dealing with the human behavior, he related its origin to the process of evolution of mind. His views expressed in informal language are summarized as follows:


‘Evolutionism’ is a very fundamental subject. Before understanding that subject, first of all let’s understand how the subject of evolutionism is taught in text-books, in schools and colleges. Thereby further description will be simpler for us. This is the book of 12th standard in India. This is the book by Popular Publications for ‘Steps in Biology’. 


“To state in the words of Darwin, evolution is descent with modification.”

The earlier sentence is like this, “In other words, all organisms are descended from the preexisting and simple ancestors”. That means all these creatures of the world…the complex human beings, were created from very simple creatures created in the beginning. This evolution has started from a single cell and then the various layers were created. But what was there before the arrival of the existence of the single cell? There was a virus. A virus must have been originated from some state existed earlier. So while going like this, where did it originate from?


So they have told in simpler terms – ‘Organic Evolution’. It means that non-matter is created from the matter. In short, all of the living beings are created from the lifeless matter. Their simple theorem is that this living being is created from the matter in the inanimate stage. If you consider this, then you can put forth a very simple equation, thereafter.


They are of the opinion that the living beings were created by the adjustments and modifications.
It is correct that the development happened slowly, one step after another. But whose basic desire was it to develop?


The believers in Energy (Life) are of the opinion that, it is energy which is important. That got stuck to the body, stuck to the matter, stuck to the inanimate objects; this world is created from both of them together. Some people who say that living being was created from the lifeless objects. Well, that’s OK,, but how did this happen?’ Then they are not able to tell. It means they are not able to explain it.


“ The doctrine of organic evolution has now been universally accepted. There is, however, no consensus of opinion amongst biologists as regards its modus operandi.


There was previrus before virus, there was retro – virus. Earlier than that there were coaservate drops, while counting back from 100 we arrived at one (1). We agree to it. But why don’t you tell us as to how did one(1) originate? You cannot tell us, about that? Did it come from zero? You are not able to give an answer as to where one (1) originated from. And that is why we are going to the roots and saying that we are proving (the existence of) energy’.


Talking only in terms of ‘New Way philosophy’, we have told earlier that you define the matter. After you have defined matter, we have demonstrated to you that there is something beyond the matter. That which transcends the velocity of light is called as non-matter. The one which cannot exceed the velocity of light is the matter, meaning the inanimate object as you have called it, which is right. We have demonstrated to you that there is something that can go beyond the velocity of light.


We have to accept a simple theorem that the Chetana (energy) has constructed the nature while taking the help of jada (matter). You will say, what will happen if we don’t accept it? – You will be caught in a trap.


We have seen in the last lesson that Lamarck’s theorem was proven wrong. The other theorem that was proven wrong was that of Darwin.


Limitations to Darwinism are given in this book under reference on page 53 -54. They have told that there are five aspects which are against Darwin’s theorem. They have mentioned these five points as ‘objections to Darwinism’


What was the reason for the nature to select? They cannot figure out that cause. It means they are not able to find the fundamental cause.


Who had the need at that time to suddenly transform the non – living matter into living beings? What kind of need arose for which the nature has done all this? What was its motive? They are unable to explain this by any means. And that is where the evolution or evolutionism falls short, becomes weak.


Generally even I (S. V.) accept the evolutionism to that extent. I accept evolution steps(11 to 100). Not only this, I am ready to accept it from (1) to (10). It is logically correct. We do accept that evolution has taken shape very slowly. But basically why life was created in the first place?


We agree with the fact you described about the way evolution happened from 11 to 100 very well. We are ready to accept it from 1 to 10 as well.


"Hence we put forth the theorem of velocity of light there; and we oppose the evolutionists of materialistic orientation. We politely tell them ‘Give us an answer; we are ready to go back’. But none has given any answer to this yet".


Vijay R. Joshi.


Saturday, August 2, 2014

Notion of random evolution. (E O M - 9)

Myth Conception 4: 

(Ref. Book – Excerpts from Spontaneous Evolution, Authors: Bruce H. Lipton and Steve Bhaerman)

As repeatedly propagated by Swami Vijnananand, we have been mentioning in these blogs the role of mind and the importance and inevitability of mind's role for inclusion in the scope of science. Such opinions are echoed by a few scientists and thinkers in the 21st century. This blog also covers this topic.

Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck born in 1744, for the first time published the theory of evolution in three volumes based on his ten years research. Lamarck’s idea about evolution and nature’s impulse toward perfection gained prominence in France. Lamarck suggested that evolution was the result of organisms acquiring and passing on environment-induced adaptations needed to sustain their survival in ever-changing world.

Unfortunately for Lamarck, his ideas about evolutionary progress being part of the course of nature had social implications. If nature could progress, then it was natural for lower classes of humanity to progress as well. So when the French revolution failed and King Louis XVIII restored the monarchy, Lamarck found himself out of favor with the church and ruling class. For some reasons his academic rival Baron Cuvier purposefully distorted and misquoted Lamarck’s work on evolution. Cuvier’s assessment of Lamarck and his ideas has ever since been (1832) cited as the document that justifies portraying Lamarck as buffoon (joker/ fool).

Ironically more than 175 years after Lamarck’s death (in 1829) science is finding that evolutionary intention may be a lot closer to the truth than Lamarck ever imagined. But between then and now other scientists also managed to push Lamarck and his ideas further into background. The Darwin evolution theory (survival of the fittest) was considered appropriate and acceptable.

The experimental science of genetics was officially launched in 1910. Later Thomas Hunt Morgan and in 1943 researchers Salvador Luria and Max Delbruck appeared to prove once for all that mutation was purely random event. Later up to 1988 many experiments confirming these findings led science to adapt the assumption that all mutations were random events.

Based upon these observations science adapted the seemingly iron-clad tenet: when mutation occur they are purely random and unpredictable events and have nothing to do with any need the organism might have at present or in the future.

Because evolution appeared to be driven solely by mutations, science concluded that randomly drawn evolution has no purpose. The idea fit wel with the scientific materialism’s belief in purely materialistic Universe and helped shift the focus from intentional creation to merely “throw of genetic dice.” A human being is just another among the “accidental tourist” who materialized in the biosphere through random act of heredity.

However in 1988, promonant geneticist John Cairns challanged sciences's established belief in random evolution.Cairns novel research on " The Origin of Mutants" was published in the presigious British journal Nature.

Cairns referred to this newly discovered mechanism as directed mutation. But the concept of environmental stimuli feeding back into an organism and direct a rewritting of genetic information was strongy disliked by the dogma of the conventional science.

Both Nature and the Amrican journal Science publised editorials raging against Cairn's findings. This was a clear indication that the white-coated prists of scientific materialism were ready to burn Cairns at the stake.

Over the next decade other researchers replicated Cairn's results. As a result, leading genetic researchers softened directed mutation to adaptive mutation and the relegated to beneficial mutation.

Cairn's work and subsequent studies introduced the realities that organism not only adapts to an environment but that they intentionally change their genetics to enhance the adaptation of future generation. In other words, science is coming to realize that evolution is not simply an accident as per Darwinian theory but a coordinated Lamarckian dance between an organism and its environment, a dynamic process in which organisms can continueously adapt to stressful circmstances.

In a way, evolution is a random process but the randomness seems to have a purposeful destnation.

We shall later see the views expressed by Swami Vijnananand when he guided to the young seekers of Manashakti Ashram in 1990 on the direction of the research needed to find the truth behind the process of evolution. But here one may take a note that Mind's role in evolution has to be considered as "pure materialistic attitude" is not acceptable to the conventional scientists too!



Vijay R. Joshi.




Monday, June 30, 2014

Evolution theories: Brief review. (E O M - 2)


EXCERPTS FROM (Evolution Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia )
Evolution, in biology, is a complex process by which the characteristics of living organisms change over many generations as traits are passed from one generation to the next.
The science of evolution seeks to understand the biological forces that caused ancient organisms to develop into the tremendous and ever-changing variety of life seen on Earth today. It addresses how, over the course of time, various plant and animal species branch off to become entirely new species, and how different species are related through complicated family trees that span millions of years.
Evolution provides an essential framework for studying the ongoing history of life on Earth. A central, and historically controversial, component of evolutionary theory is that all living organisms, from microscopic bacteria to plants, insects, birds, and mammals, share a common ancestor. Species that are closely related share a recent common ancestor, while distantly related species have a common ancestor further in the past. The animal most closely related to humans, for example, is the chimpanzee. The common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees is believed to have lived approximately 6 million to 7 million years ago . On the other hand, an ancestor common to humans and reptiles lived some 300 million years ago. And the common ancestor to even more distantly related forms lived even further in the past. Evolutionary biologists attempt to determine the history of lineages as they diverge and how differences in characteristics developed over time.
Throughout history, philosophers, religious thinkers, and scientists have attempted to explain the history and variety of life on Earth. During the rise of modern science in Western Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, a predominant view held that God created every organism on Earth more or less as it now exists. But in that time of burgeoning interest in the study of fossils and natural history, the beginnings of a modern evolutionary theory began to take shape. Early evolutionary theorists proposed that all of life on Earth evolved gradually from simple organisms. Their knowledge of science was incomplete, however, and their theories left too many questions unanswered. Most prominent scientists of the day remained convinced that the variety of life on Earth could only result from an act of divine creation.
In the mid-19th century a modern theory of evolution took hold, thanks to British naturalist Charles Darwin. In his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, published in 1859, Darwin described the evolution of life as a process of natural selection. Life, he suggested, is a competitive struggle to survive, often in the face of limited resources. Living things must compete for food and space. They must evade the ravages of predators and disease while dealing with unpredictable shifts in their environment, such as changes in climate. Darwin offered that, within a given population in a given environment, certain individuals possess characteristics that make them more likely to survive and reproduce. These individuals will pass these critical characteristics on to their offspring. The number of organisms with these traits increases as each generation passes on the advantageous combination of traits. Outmatched, individuals lacking the beneficial traits gradually decrease in number. Slowly, Darwin argued, natural selection tips the balance in a population toward those with the combination of traits, or adaptations, best suited to their environment.

Animal Kingdom

While On the Origin of Species was an instant sensation and best-seller, Darwin’s theories faced hostile reception by critics who railed against his blasphemous ideas. Other critics pointed to questions left unresolved by Darwin’s careful arguments. For instance, Darwin could not explain the mechanism that caused life forms to change from generation to generation.
Hostility gave way to acclaim as scientists vigorously debated, explored, and built on Darwin’s theory of natural selection. As the 20th century unfolded, scientific advances revealed the detailed mechanisms missing from Darwin’s theory. Study of the complex chemistry of all organisms unveiled the structure of genes as well as how they are duplicated, altered, and passed from generation to generation. New statistical methods helped explain how genes in specific populations change over generations.
These new methods provided insight into how populations remain adaptable to changing environmental circumstances and broadened our understanding of the genetic structure of populations. Advances in techniques used to determine the age of fossils provided clues about when extinct organisms existed and details about the circumstances surrounding their extinction. And new molecular biology techniques compare the genetic structures of different species, enabling scientists to determine heretofore undetectable evolutionary relationships between species.
Today, evolution is recognized as the cornerstone of modern biology. Uniting such diverse scientific fields as cell biology, genetics, paleontology, and even geology and statistics, the study of evolution reveals an exquisitely complex interaction of the forces that act upon every life form on Earth.
Experiment 1953: Attempt to reproduce the atmosphere of the primitive Earth nearly 4 billion years ago
Some evolutionary biologists are trying to understand how life originated on Earth. This too requires the careful examination and interpretation of many indirect clues. In one well-known series of experiments in 1953, American chemists Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey attempted to reproduce the atmosphere of the primitive Earth nearly 4 billion years ago. They circulated a mixture of gases believed to have been present at the time (hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor) over water in a sterile glass container. They then subjected the gases to the energy of electrical sparks, simulating the action of lightning on the primitive Earth. After about a week, the fluid turned brown and was found to contain amino acids―the building blocks of proteins. Subsequent work by these scientists and others also succeeded in producing nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA and other nucleic acids.
While the artificial generation of these molecules in laboratories did not produce a living organism, this research offers some support that the first building blocks of life could have arisen from raw materials that were present in the environment of the primitive Earth. Once all the raw materials were in place―nucleic acids, proteins, and the other components of simple cells―it is not clear how the first self-replicating life forms actually came about.
Recent theories center on the role of a particular nucleic acid―ribonucleic acid (RNA), which, in modern cells, carries out the task of translating the instructions coded in DNA for the assembling of proteins. RNA also acts as a catalyst―that is, to cause other chemical reactions―and perhaps most significantly, to make copies of itself. Some scientists believe that the first self-replicating organisms were based on RNA.
Lamarck: Perhaps the most prominent of those who embraced the idea of progressive change in the living world was the early 19th-century French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Lamarck’s theory, now known as Lamarckism and based in part on his study of the fossils of marine invertebrates, was that species do change over time. He believed, furthermore, that animals evolve because unfavorable conditions produce needs that animals try to satisfy.
Modern scientists know that adaptation and natural selection are far more complicated than Lamarck supposed, having nothing to do with an animal’s voluntary efforts. Nevertheless, the idea of acquired characteristics, with Lamarck as its most famous proponent, persisted for many years.
Cuvier: French naturalist and paleontologist Georges Cuvier feuded (disagreed) with Lamarck. Unearthing the fossils of mastodons and other vanished species, Cuvier produced proof of long-extinct life forms on Earth. Unlike Lamarck, however, Cuvier did not believe in evolution. Instead, Cuvier believed that floods and other cataclysms destroyed such ancient species. He suggested that after each cataclysmic event, God created a new set of organisms.
Thomas Robert Malthus: At around the same time that Cuvier and Lamarck were squabbling, British economist Thomas Robert Malthus proposed ideas extremely influential in evolutionary theory. In his 1798 work An Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus theorized that the human population would increase at a much greater rate than its food sources. This theory introduced the key idea of competition for limited resources―that is, there is not enough food, water, and living space to go around, and organisms must somehow compete with each other to obtain resources necessary for survival.
Charles Lyell: Another key idea came from Scottish geologist Charles Lyell, who supplied a deeper understanding of Earth’s history. In his book Principles of Geology (1830), Lyell set forth his case that the Earth was millions of years old rather than only a few thousand years old, as was maintained by those who accepted the biblical story of divine creation as fact.
Alfred Russell Wallace

British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace shares credit for the revolutionary theory

 of evolution by natural selection with another British naturalist, Charles Darwin.

 Though the two scientists arrived at their conclusions independently, excerpts of 

their papers were presented simultaneously at a now famous meeting of the 

Linnean Society in London in 1858.

In 1831 Charles Darwin, who was intending to become a country minister, had an opportunity to sail as ship’s naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle on a five-year, round-the-world mapmaking voyage.
In 1837, shortly after returning to England, Darwin began a notebook of his observations and thoughts on evolution. Although Darwin had developed the major components of his theory of evolution by natural selection in an 1842 unpublished paper circulated among his friends, he was unwilling to publish the results until he could present as complete a case as possible. He labored for almost 20 additional years on his theory of evolution and on its primary mechanism, natural selection.
In 1858 he received a letter from British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, a professional collector of wildlife specimens. Much to Darwin’s surprise, Wallace had independently hit upon the idea of natural selection to explain how species are modified by adapting to different conditions. Not wanting Darwin to be unfairly deprived of his share of the credit for the theory, some of Darwin’s scientific colleagues presented extracts of Darwin’s work along with Wallace’s paper at a meeting of the Linnean Society, a London-based science organization, in June 1858. Wallace’s paper stimulated Darwin to finish his work and get it into print. Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection on November 24, 1859. All 1,250 copies of the first printing were sold on that day.
Gregor Mendel

Known as the father of modern genetics, Austrian monk Gregor Mendel developed

 the principles of heredity by studying the variation and heredity of seven pairs of 

inherited characteristics in pea plants. Although the significance of his work was

 not recognized during his lifetime, it became the basis for the present day

 field of genetics.

Mendel performed hundreds of experiments and produced precise statistical models and principles of heredity, now known as Mendel’s Laws, showing how dominant and recessive traits are expressed over generations. However, no one appreciated the significance of Mendel’s work until after his death. But his work ultimately gave birth to the modern field of genetics.
Hugo Marie de Vries: In 1900, Dutch botanist Hugo Marie de Vries and others independently discovered Mendel’s laws. The following year, de Vries’s book The Mutation Theory challenged Darwin’s concept of gradual changes over long periods by proposing that evolution occurred in abrupt, radical steps.
Having observed new varieties of the evening primrose plant coming into existence in a single generation, de Vries had subsequently determined that sudden change, or mutation, in the genetic material was responsible. As the debate over evolution continued in the early 20th century, some scientists came to believe that mutation, and not natural selection, was the driving force in evolution. In the face of these mutationists, Darwin’s central theory threatened to fall out of favor.
Theodosius Dobzhansky

American geneticist and zoologist Theodosius Dobzhansky was an important 

contributor to the field of population genetics. Dobzhansky studies of fruit

 flies and other organisms helped explain the role of adaptation in the 

evolution of races and species. As the science of genetics advanced during the

 1920s and 1930s, several key scientists forged a link between Mendel laws of 

inheritance and the theory of natural selection proposed by Darwin and Wallace.
British mathematician Sir Ronald Fisher, British geneticist J.B.S. Haldane, and American geneticist Sewall Wright pioneered the field of population genetics. By mathematically analyzing the genetic variation in entire populations, these scientists demonstrated that natural selection, and not just mutation, could result in evolutionary change.
Modern synthesis: Further investigation into population genetics and such fields as paleontology, taxonomy, biogeography, and the biochemistry of genes eventually led to what is called the modern synthesis. This modern view of evolution integrated discoveries and ideas from many different disciplines.
In so doing, this view reconciled the many disparate ideas about evolution into the all-encompassing evolutionary science studied today.
In 1942, American paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson demonstrated from the fossil record that rates and modes of evolution are correlated: New kinds of organisms arise when their ancestors invade a new niche, and evolve rapidly to best exploit the conditions in the new environment.
In the late 1940s American botanist G. Ledyard Stebbins showed that plants display evolutionary patterns similar to those of animals, and especially that plant evolution has demonstrated diverse adaptive responses to environmental pressures and opportunities.
In addition, biologists reviewed a broad range of genetic, ecological, and anatomical evidence to show that observation and experimental evidence strongly supported the modern synthesis. The theory has formed the basis of evolutionary science since the 1950s.
Watson and Crick: In 1953, American biochemist James Watson and British biophysicist Francis Crick described the three-dimensional shape of DNA, the molecule that contains hereditary information in nearly all living organisms. In the following decade, geneticists developed techniques to rapidly compare DNA and proteins from different organisms. In one such procedure, electrophoresis, geneticists evaluate different specimens of DNA or proteins by observing how they behave in the presence of a slight electric charge. Such techniques opened up entirely new ways to study evolution. For the first time geneticists could quantitatively determine, for example, the genetic change that occurs during the formation of new species.
In 1968 Japanese geneticist Motoo Kimura proposed that much of the variation at the molecular level results not from the forces of natural selection, but from chance mutations that do not affect an organism’s fitness. Not all scientists agree with the neutral gene theory.
Sociobiology: In recent decades, another branch of evolutionary theory has appeared, as researchers have explored the possibility that not only physical traits, but behavior itself, might be inherited.
Behavioral geneticists have studied how genes influence behavior, and more recently, the role of biology in social behavior has been explored. This field of investigation, known as sociobiology, was inaugurated in 1975 with the publication of the book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by American evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson.
Sociobiologists examine animal behaviors that are called altruistic―that is, unselfish, or demonstrating concern for the welfare of others. When birds feed on the ground, for example, one individual may notice a predator and sound an alarm. In so doing, the bird also calls the predator’s attention to itself. What can account for the behavior of such a sentry, who would seem to derive no evolutionary benefit from its unselfish behavior and so seem to defy the laws of natural selection?
Darwin was aware of altruistic social behavior in animals, and of how this phenomenon challenged his theory of natural selection.
Evolutionary theory has undergone many further refinements in recent years. One such theory challenges the central idea that evolution proceeds by gradual change.
In 1972 American paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed the theory of punctuated equilibria. According to this theory, trends in the fossil record cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within a lineage, but rather result from quick bursts of rapid evolutionary change.
In the last several decades, scientists have questioned the role of extinction in evolution. Of the millions of species that have existed on this planet, more than 99 percent are extinct.
Historically, biologists regarded extinction as a natural outcome of competition between newly evolved, adaptively superior species and their older, more primitive ancestors. Recently, however, paleontologists have discovered that many different, unrelated species living in large ecosystems tend to become extinct at nearly the same time. The cause is always some sort of climate change or catastrophic event that produces conditions too severe for most organisms to endure. Moreover, new species evolve after the wave of extinction removes many of the species that previously occupied a region for millions of years. Thus extinction does not result from evolution, but actually causes it.
Scientists have identified several instances of mass extinction, when species apparently died out on a huge scale. The greatest of these episodes occurred during the end of the Permian Period, some 245 million years ago. At that time, according to estimates, more than 95 percent of species―nearly all life on the planet―died out. Another extensively studied extinction took place at the boundary of the Cretaceous Period and the Tertiary Period, roughly 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs disappeared. In all, more than 20 global mass extinctions have been identified. Some scientists theorize that such events may even be cyclical, occurring at regular intervals.
Advances in medical technology may also affect natural selection. The study from the mid-20th century showing that babies of medium birth weights were more likely to survive than their heavier or lighter counterparts would be difficult to reproduce today. Advances in neonatal medical technology have made it possible for small or premature babies to survive in much higher numbers.
Recent genetic analysis shows the human population contains harmful mutations in unprecedented levels. Researchers attribute this to genetic drift acting on small human populations throughout history. They also expect that improved medical technology may exacerbate the problem. Better medicine enables more people to survive to reproductive age, even if they carry mutations that in past generations would have caused their early death. The genetic repercussions of this are still unknown, but biologists speculate that many minor problems, such as poor eyesight, headaches, and stomach upsets may be attributable to our collection of harmful mutations.
Humans have also developed the potential to affect evolution at the most basic level―the genes. The techniques of genetic engineering have become commonplace. Scientists can extract genes from living things, alter them by combining them with another segment of DNA, and then place this recombinant DNA back inside the organism.
Genetic engineering has produced pest-resistant crops as well as larger cows and other livestock. To an increasing extent, genetic engineers fight human disease, such as cancer and heart disease. The investigation of gene therapy, in which scientists substitute functioning copies of a given gene for a defective gene, is an active field of research. The way this tinkering with genetic material will affect evolution remains to be determined.

Comments: Though lot of thinkers have put forward different theories on the process of evolution, there are many un-answered questions still waiting for answers. We shall try to see some more 21st century thinkers' views in the articles to follow.


Vijay R. Joshi.