Saturday, July 2, 2011

The Selfish Gene - Not so much!

For those that see The Selfish Gene of Richard Dawkins as a master piece in the subject of Evolution, they must review his opinion. There are some things that kill all the reasoning of it. And some of those things are:
  1. When writing about Why Sex evolved in the Chapter Immortal coils, he states:
    "This is an extremely difficult question for the evolutionist to answer. Most serious attempts to answer in evolve sophisticated mathematical reasoning. I am frankly going to evade it except to say one thing."
  2. And the one (big) thing he has to say is:
    "Whether or not it benefits all the rest of an individual's genes is comparatively irrelevant. Seen from the selfish gene's point of view, sex is not so bizarre after all"
  3. A good question is that, if it is irrelevant, why bother so much with the esoteric asexual examples after all?
  4. Plus, there is a misconception between Group Selection and Species Selection in the Chapter Why are people?:
    "The quick answer of the 'individual selectionist' to the argument just put might go something like this. Even in the group of altruists, there will almost certainly be a dissenting minority who refuse to make any sacrifice. [It] If there is just one selfish rebel, prepared to exploit the altruism of the rest, then he, by definition, is more likely then they are to survive and have children. Each of these children will tend to inherit his selfish traits. After several generations of this natural selection, the 'altruist group' will be over-run by selfish individuals, and will be indistinguishable from the selfish group. Even if we grant the improbable change existence initially of pure altruistic groups without any rebels, it is very difficult to see what is to stop selfish individuals migrating in from neighbourning selfish groups, and, by inter-marriage, contaminating the purity of the altruistic groups."
  5. By definition? He completely forgets to mention Sexual Selection, and he is blind to see that, by definition is of the domain of Sexual Selection, not Natural Selection. So, it not matters if some one is selfish, what it matters is if some one is attractive and nice to the Species, or by other words, less degenerative of its own species. This is the Species Selection that he constantly avoids to mention it, maintaining the clumsily Group Selection argument easy to disrupt;
  6. His book has 81 results for "Natural Selection" and 10 results for "Sexual Selection" a ratio of 8,1 times, almost the same we get in a Google search ("Natural Selection" vs "Sexual Selection")! Now, do you still have doubts about the reality of the existing Status Quo?
  7. The despair is so great, that for the extraordinary difference in size of the genome, he says that is a noncoding DNA, without never realize, or explain, why that hypothetical difference between Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes remains nevertheless.
In conclusion, Dawkins is a fanatic fellow when it came to genes as the absolute Unit of Selection.

I'm absolutely right!

Friday, June 10, 2011

Species' Definition - A materialistic one

There is the conviction that species are a mere classification, and all of the meanings for the word Species maintain that logic. One of the meanings is the following:
"A group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."
The problem with this definition is that does not put Species, in terms of meaning, at the level of Organism. Being a group of organisms it turns out to be a mere classification, and that is the main problem with this definition, its lack of substance.

I defend that Prokaryotes represent a Two-Layer scheme while Eukaryotes a Three-Layer one (see The Truth about Species! - Part 3 - Inductive Nature).

What are those three layers? Simple, the existing two of Prokaryotes plus one, Species. In this Scheme we have, Environment, Species and Organism.

Prokaryotes vs. Eukaryotes, NS - Natural Selection, SS - Sexual Selection

Now, you may notice that Environment and Organism have a materialistic definition, an organism is any contiguous living system, and an Environment encompasses all living and non-living things occurring naturally on Earth or some region thereof. Note that this means that an Organism may be a single animal as it may be multiple, like in the case of ants, where an Organism as a living system is the Colony, maintaining this way the concept of interbreeding (colonies) and the notion of Species as the blueprint of colonies with all animals' characteristics and interactions, including the ones composing the same Organism that aren't able to reproduce (worker ants). So, bottom line, an Organism may also be something abstract, like a Colony of ants (Superorganism), as the sole unit capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring!

Question, why there isn't a materialistic definition for Species? Because most evolutionists refuse to see Species as something equally materialistic as an Organism.

Now we will try to construct our own materialistic definition:
"Species, a product of meiosis, is the proxy between Environment and Organism."
And in which way Species is a proxy? In the way that evolution doesn't work on Organisms, instead, it works on this Proxy that we call Species.

Seeing Species as something real, something materialist, the definition is as natural as Environment or Organism.

The view of this Proxy makes it clear that, albeit some traits of Eukaryotic organisms increase the difficulty of reproduction, like the evolution of the intercrossing, they are the best prove that Evolution works on Species and not on Organisms. When it comes to Organisms, they only relate with this Proxy in a form of Sexual Selection. In conclusion, there isn't Natural Selection or Evolution for the Eukaryote Organism, the Species is there precisely for that.

If you still insist in exotic examples, like Asexual Species, note that Asexual Species are an impossibility, or if you prefer, simple unnatural to Eukaryotes.

"I have repeatedly stressed how difficul it is to state something general about asexuals that with reasonably accuracy will hold for all or at least most of them. One such generalization is, however, of great importance. It says that asexual lineages are, on average, shorter lived in evolution than sexual lineages. This conclusion is based on the fact that asexuality appears constantly among sexual eukaryotes, while no reverse evolution – from full asexuality to sexuality – is normally to reckon with. Nevertheless, the eukaryotic tree remains dominated by sexuality. This situation would not hold unless asexual lineages have a shorter lifespan on average than sexual lineages. The relative disadvantage of asexuality is directly seen in the eukaryote tree in all its immensity, where sexuality dominates all major branches. The same logic applies, however, also to every derived lineage, down to for example the water-flea Daphnia pulex that generate asexuals at a considerable rate and still retains sexuality as their basic reproductive mode (Paland et al. 2005; see Chapter 15)." - in Lost Sex, The Evolutionary Biology of Parthenogenesis

Tree of Life with Genome Size - Dismissing Asexual Species

Saturday, May 28, 2011

New species evolve in bursts - One more to the score

I'm starting to be like Darwin, like when people talk about Men from Apes.

When I say that there aren't Asexual Species, people normally forget that I'm taking from granted that only Eukaryotes have species.

Albeit the complains, again, and again, evidences fall in my hands telling me that I'm right, only Eukaryotes have species, because only them have Sexual Selection.

I found this more two for my increasing score:
  1. New species evolve in bursts;
  2. How many species of prokaryotes are there?.
The first one tells you that Sexual Selection promotes Punctuated Equilibrium, like my same conclusion in my post Inductive Nature, and the second one ends up making the following statement:
"Thus definition of species on this basis is not adequate for assessing the functional diversity of prokaryotic communities."

This last one, subscribes my post Why Sex, where I say:
"The placed pieces of the classic view do not solve the puzzle, because they are wrongly positioned in the next way:
  1. Speciation (all organisms);
  2. Sexual selection (some species)
Those pieces need to bee changed, like this:
  1. Speciation (some organisms);
  2. Sexual selection (all species)."
It's amazingly how Classical Evolutionist are starting to became like Evangelist, with Natural Selection exclusivity has his GOD.

Refusing the Status Quo is the fastest way to deprecation.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Important FAQs about Evolution - Fighting the Status Quo

Here are some FAQs for some important questions about Evolution:
Q: Why Sexual Reproduction?
A: Because it's the mechanism of speciation.

Q: Is there Asexual Species?
A: No, because sex is the mechanism of speciation.

Q: What undermines Complexity in Natural Selection?
A: Entropy.

Q: What liberates Natural Selection from Entropy?
A: Sexual Selection.

Q: What supports Evolution of Complexity with Sexual Selection?
A: Induction.

Q: Is the Evolution of Peafowl's tail a good example of Sexual Selection?
A: No, Evolution is Unachievable trough Sexual Selection.

What is the Cause of the Cambrian Explosion?
A: Cognition (Nervous Systems) plus Sexual Selection.

Q: Why evolutionists love to speak of Natural Selection but usually omit Sexual Selection?
A: Because in general they support Natural Selection exclusivity.

Q: Why in Google "Natural Selection" returns 10 times more results than "Sexual Selection"?
A: Because the Status Quo is committed in the Natural Selection exclusivity.

Q: Why in Google "Evolution" returns 40 times more results than "Natural Selection"?
A: Because it's just one word.

If you have more questions please ask...!

Relax Darwin, it's also Natural Selection!

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Eukaryotes from Prokaryotes and the Greatest Lie - For the Folks

In the People arena, there is the supposed knowledge about evolution that has been used as argument for a serie of events that intended to prove, or justify. People think that, for example, a systematic selection in an competitive environment is a good example of Natural Selection. This kind of survival of the fittest is in my opinion, the Greatest Lie that persists, because is one that supports as Natural something that isn't.

In a complex environment, or reality, Natural Selection isn't the systematic, or competitive actor, Sexual Selection is. So, in a complex world, systematic selection is Sexual Selection accordingly to a logic, or abstraction, that in reality, is the only product of the so argued Natural Selection. However, in the best interest of that logic, or abstraction, it's important that the competitors, or elements, fighting for its acceptance, believe in their competition as a sort of Natural Selection, were in fact, is Sexual Selection. This is the picture of the Greatest Lie.
"After the origin of eukaryotes the next transition suggested by Maynard Smith is the origin of sex. Sexual reproduction, the sharing of genes between two individuals to produce offspring, is normally viewed as a primary character trait of all eukaryotes. There are many eukaryote species that can reproduce asexually, but there are only a few that must reproduce asexually, and in those cases it is usually clear that they stem from sexual ancestors - They have given up sex, rather than never having had it in the first place." - Tim Lenton, Andrew Watson, 2001, Revolutions that Made the Earth
Next we will see the differences traditionally used to distinguish eukaryotes from prokaryotes listed by Mayrd.

Cell size
Small, ~1-10µm Large, usually 10-100µm
Endoplasmic membranes
AbsentEndoplasmic reticulum, golgi apparatus present
DNASingle circular chromosome, not complexed with proteins. No introns, few transposable elements
Multiple linear chromosomes contained in nucleus. Many introns, transposable elements
OrganellesAbsentPresent (mitochondria, hydrogenosomes, chloroplasts, etc...)
MetabolismDiverseMostly aerobic
Cell wall
Protein wall in (eu)bacteria
Cellulose or chitin, none in animals
Genetic recombination
Lateral gene transfer
Cell division
Binary fission
By mitosis
FlagellaRotatingUndulating cilia
RespirationOn membranes
Environmental tolerance
Wide range of temperatures, pressures, chemical tolerance, resistance to desiccation.
Narrower range of tolerance
Adapted from: Mayar, 2002, What Evolution Is

If you are one of those strongly committed to the Natural Selection dogma, you should read the following sentences:
"If sex did not reduce variation, then there would be as many species as there are individuals" - Charles Darwin (1838-1839)
"Sex usually results in extreme slowing of evolution" - Root Gorelick Henry H. Q. Heng, 2010.Sex Reduces Genetic Variation: A Multidisciplinary Review
"We reviewed arguments from a diverse assemblage of biologists—ecologists, cancer biologists, population geneticists, paleontologists, molecular biologists, genome theorists, epigeneticists—who implore that sex reduces genetic variation." - Root Gorelick Henry H. Q. Heng, 2010.Sex Reduces Genetic Variation: A Multidisciplinary Review
In the end, it will be obvious that Sexual Selection is like a wedge, maintaining the achieved evolution and encapsulating the entropy of Natural Selection inside the organism's layer. In this way, the achieved evolution is protected at the cost of wasted organisms, washing away any entropy from Natural Selection. However, this view stills very oppressed, because Natural Selection exclusivity is the spine of the contemporaneous philosophy, serving the status quo.

But this is supposed to be for the Folks' eyes, right? Yes, it is. And so, I draw my own table to make clear what is and what isn't Natural Selection in a complex environment, a table that works as an instrument to avoid folks being fools.

Natural Selection
Sexual Selection
TimingA posteriori
A Priori
Natural or Sexual Selection, the good question.

The first question you should make about yourself is, are you an organism? Now, even if you made part of a very strict military selection, for a special force, you may be made to think in that selection as Natural Selection. But think a little more, where is the Logic? Is the military soldier the Logical or the Physical element? The answer is simple, the soldier is the physical element. But where is the logical one? Well, the process of military selection itself is the logical element. Is the criteria for the "good soldier" that in the future will be Natural Selected, not the soldier itself, the last one was Sexual Selected in the past, in a systematic way!

Now the Greatest Truth. Your condition of organism, no matter the species you belong to (obviously one), puts you in a state of systematic testing. Because you belong to the physical world, evolution for you is an unachievable thing, the only thing that achieved something was the Species. This Greatest truth is a dramatic one when it comes to organisms, it's the drama of systematic provision of your good will for what the species it's concern, a provision that isn't meant to be definitely achievable, except for the logical element, the species itself.

But there is more, it's not only how the organism is made, it's also what that same organism wants. Think a little, what is connecting organisms that makes them wish essentially the same? Do you think that, because something is thought in an common way turns out to be a fact? Think in optical illusion, is not that common in humans? The conclusion is obvious, your will comes from the species, your feelings of reward or regret are constructions that are to much common to be really yours.

For those organisms that make questions about the meaning of life, and about the path to happiness, here is the answer:
"Life is waste, and happiness relief."
Is this pessimist? Well, all depends, if are the species commanding the organisms or vice versa. Until now, the species have been ruling with no exception.

A Good Soldier like a Good Specimen under the Species' Eyes

Monday, January 17, 2011

Sex is the mechanism of speciation! - For the Septicks

Some people truly become annoyed with the following What Ifs:
  1. What if speciation is more than an handy classification?
  2. What if speciation is an acquired skill?
  3. What if Sexual Selection is the mechanism of that skill?
Those people say that I'm completely wrong, and that I do not understand what a Species is. In their opinion:
"Species are only a human construction that is convenient for us humans to understand the world, but which has no special biological value."
However, I show some quotes that surely those people are unaware:
"The appearance of sexual reproduction i.e., syngamy, genetic recombination and meiosis has long been considered a major evolutionary threshold, giving rise to a fundamental increase in variation (Schopf et al. 1973), a novel ability to remove deleterious mutations (Muller 1964), and indeed ‘‘true’’ species and speciation (Stanley 1975). The presence of at least two distinct spore-producing phases in Bangiomorpha, and their close comparison to sexual phases in modern Bangia, presents a convincing case for eukaryotic sex by at least ca. 1200 Ma." - in Bangiomorpha pubescens n. gen., n. sp.: implications for the evolution of sex, multicellularity, and the Mesoproterozoic/ Neoproterozoic radiation of eukaryotes
and another one:
"Sexual reproduction predominates among organisms mainly because most evolutionary change is concentrated in speciation events, and asexual species cannot speciate in the normal sense. Asexual clones seldom diversify rapidly enough to overcome normal rates of extinction. In contrast, phylogenetic groups of sexual species (clades) commonly develop broad, heterogeneous adaptive zones rapidly enough to ensure survival." - in Clades versus clones in evolution: why we have sex
and last but not least:
"For over a century, the paradigm has been that sex invariably increases genetic variation, despite many renowned biologists asserting that sex decreases most genetic variation. Sex is usually perceived as the source of additive genetic variance that drives eukaryotic evolution vis-à-vis adaptation and Fisher's fundamental theorem. However, evidence for sex decreasing genetic variation appears in ecology, paleontology, population genetics, and cancer biology. The common thread among many of these disciplines is that sex acts like a coarse filter, weeding out major changes, such as chromosomal rearrangements (that are almost always deleterious), but letting minor variation, such as changes at the nucleotide or gene level (that are often neutral), flow through the sexual sieve." - in Sex reduces genetic variation: a multidisciplinary review

Modern mature (multiseriate) Bangia atropurpurea in transverse cross-section. A–C, Asexual/vegetative filament showing the radially arranged wedgeshaped cells. D, Portion of female plant showing the 8–16 fertilized carpospores produced by each wedgeshaped cell. E, Portion of male plant showing the ca. 128 spermatia produced by each wedge-shaped cell. Redrawn from Garbary et al. 1980.

No special biological value? Are you kidding?

An Open Letter about Natural and Sexual Selection by Rui Monteiro - 2010
The Truth about Species! - Part 1 (Why Sex)
The Truth about Species! - Part 2 (Cambrian Mystery)
The Truth about Species! - Part 3 (Inductive Nature)
The Truth about Species! - Part 4 (Entropic Nature)