Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:02 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
Omnitir wrote:
But an important aspect to understand of technological innovation is it’s relation to biological evolution. Technological evolution very accurately follows biological evolution – essentially technology is just the next natural step in evolution. In biological evolution the appropriate ‘breakthrough’ occur as they are needed (over a very long time period though). Technological evolution also results in the appropriate breakthroughs being developed as they are needed, only the results happen exceedingly faster then they do in the natural world.
Evolution is the result of random genetic mutation. No design, no breakthrough, just those random genetic mutations that promote survival and reproduction are incorporated into the gene pool.
However, most technological breakthoughs are a result of random chance as well...usually accidently found while trying to discover something else. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:03 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
MonteQuest wrote:
Evolution is the result of random genetic mutation. No design, no breakthrough, just those random genetic mutations that promote survival and reproduction are incorporated into the gene pool.
Well it obviously isn't "too" random, there are factors that do influence the occurence of genetic mutation, and the way it takes form.
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:28 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
MonteQuest wrote:
Evolution is the result of random genetic mutation. No design, no breakthrough, just those random genetic mutations that promote survival and reproduction are incorporated into the gene pool.
However, most technological breakthoughs are a result of random chance as well...usually accidently found while trying to discover something else.
Actually IIRC evolution is mainly driven by sexual recombination of DNA, and chiefly by the impact of natural selection. random genetic mutation on its own wouldn't be enough to create the diversity and capability of what we see.
Similarly, technological breakthroughs are almost never random, they are the product of data, understanding and usually the exposure to concepts from outside the domain. Pure type 5 innovations are extremely rare. _________________ Arcane Domain
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 10:01 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
garyp wrote:
Actually IIRC evolution is mainly driven by sexual recombination of DNA, and chiefly by the impact of natural selection. random genetic mutation on its own wouldn't be enough to create the diversity and capability of what we see.
You recall wrongly. For natural selection to occur:
There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness.
There must be differential survival and reproduction associated with the possession of that trait.
Unless both these requirements are met, adaptation by natural selection cannot occur.
Variants do not arise because they are needed as you alluded to earlier. They arise by random processes governed by the laws of genetics. For today, the central point is the chance occurrence of variation, some of which is adaptive, and the weeding out by natural selection of the best adapted varieties.
Big steps in evolution require new genetic instructions (mutations) by at least two members of a breeding pair at the same time. The mechanism seems to be that of infectious viruses could transfer this code to the whole breeding population.
The random chance that 2 individuals would mutate the same way and find each other to breed becomes rather remote, otherwise.
This is why Darwin insisted that most evolution takes place over millenia. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:10 pm; edited 2 times in total
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 10:47 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
MonteQuest wrote:
garyp wrote:
Actually IIRC evolution is mainly driven by sexual recombination of DNA, and chiefly by the impact of natural selection. random genetic mutation on its own wouldn't be enough to create the diversity and capability of what we see.
You recall wrongly. For natural selection to occur:
...
Variants do not arise because they are needed as you alluded to earlier.
I never said variants arise because they are needed. That's not the evolution we know, although I do remember papers which suggested there might be routes which affected the genes passed outside the action of natural selection. Something regarding chemical predisposition to faster genetic drift in times of stress, similar to the temperature dependent sexual selection in alligators.
MonteQuest wrote:
They arise by random processes governed by the laws of genetics. For today, the central point is the chance occurrence of variation, some of which is adaptive, and the weeding out by natural selection of the best adapted varieties.
While I agree about it being random and governed by chance, its important to recognise that recombination of existing alleles is a faster and more effective mechanism for delivering the diversity needed for natural selection to work.
The example I remember was a moth, usually light coloured, which evolved a dark coloured varient when soot from the industrial revolution made light variants prone to standing out, and getting eaten. Mutationwise there was nowhere near enough time or mutation rate to generate such a change - but there was enough time for natural selection and existing dormant genes for darker colours to have the observed effect via sexual recombination.
Either way, the point with regard scientific developments and progress is that ideas are not generally random chance events appearing from nowhere, they are recombination of existing ideas, concepts, data pulled together in new ways. Therefore if, and its a big if, if you can have understanding of a broad swathe of human knowledge the greater the body of knowledge, the greater the probability of new discovery. Double the pace of research on alternative energy and you get more than double the output as ideas from one area can be applied elsewhere (eg exponential growth).
Attention on important problems in science can have dramatic payback. _________________ Arcane Domain
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:42 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
garyp wrote:
I never said variants arise because they are needed.
Yes, you did.
Quote:
In biological evolution the appropriate ‘breakthrough’ occur as they are needed (over a very long time period though).
Quote:
The example I remember was a moth, usually light coloured, which evolved a dark coloured varient when soot from the industrial revolution made light variants prone to standing out, and getting eaten. Mutationwise there was nowhere near enough time or mutation rate to generate such a change - but there was enough time for natural selection and existing dormant genes for darker colours to have the observed effect via sexual recombination.
They did not "evolve" a dark colored varient. Genetically, the difference between the light and dark forms has been shown to be due to a single gene, the allele for melanism being dominant to that for lighter coloration.
Natural selection had nothing to do with it. The rise and fall of the melanic form of the peppered moth was due to differential bird predation in more or less polluted regions. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Oct 23, 2005 Posts: 1800 Location: East of Eden
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:31 pm Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
MonteQuest wrote:
Evolution requires new genetic instructions (mutations) by at least two members of a breeding pair at the same time. The mechanism seems to be that of infectious viruses that transfer this code to the whole breeding population.
The random chance that 2 individuals would mutate the same way and find each other to breed becomes rather remote, otherwise.
Monte, I'm confused by this. What about dominant and recessive genes? Won't a dominant new gene be passed on, possibly to multiple offspring, from a single parent -- and continue itself that way? And I thought that even a recessive gene could remain in the code, simply not showing up in traits until matched through pairing. Or am I confusing genes with mutations? Would you clarify please? _________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:05 pm Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
coyote wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
Evolution requires new genetic instructions (mutations) by at least two members of a breeding pair at the same time. The mechanism seems to be that of infectious viruses that transfer this code to the whole breeding population.
The random chance that 2 individuals would mutate the same way and find each other to breed becomes rather remote, otherwise.
Monte, I'm confused by this. What about dominant and recessive genes? Won't a dominant new gene be passed on, possibly to multiple offspring, from a single parent -- and continue itself that way? And I thought that even a recessive gene could remain in the code, simply not showing up in traits until matched through pairing. Or am I confusing genes with mutations? Would you clarify please?
Sure. I was addressing the notion of a big evolutionary step, which Darwin noted would probably would have to be taken by at least two members of a breeding pair at the same time. I edited my previous for clarity.
This is why Darwin insisted on the tiny incremental steps in his theory. With our modern understanding of DNA, we see that evolution could likely be enhanced by viral transmission of code.
Dominant and recessive mutated genes that promoted survival and reproduction would most definitely be passed on, but passing on these genes does not in itself lead to evolution that results in a new species or change in features.
However, over time, if the selection forces remain the same for many generations, these beneficial mutations become more and more abundant, until they dominate the population, while mutations or genes with a lesser fitness disappear or become recessive.
A simple process, but it gets quite confusing. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Oct 23, 2005 Posts: 1800 Location: East of Eden
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
Thanks for explaining Monte. Yet another topic for me to get caught up on! _________________ "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy
Joined: Apr 02, 2005 Posts: 1001 Location: Down Under
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:19 pm Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
MonteQuest wrote:
Omnitir wrote:
But an important aspect to understand of technological innovation is it’s relation to biological evolution. Technological evolution very accurately follows biological evolution – essentially technology is just the next natural step in evolution. In biological evolution the appropriate ‘breakthrough’ occur as they are needed (over a very long time period though). Technological evolution also results in the appropriate breakthroughs being developed as they are needed, only the results happen exceedingly faster then they do in the natural world.
Evolution is the result of random genetic mutation. No design, no breakthrough, just those random genetic mutations that promote survival and reproduction are incorporated into the gene pool.
However, most technological breakthoughs are a result of random chance as well...usually accidently found while trying to discover something else.
Yes, the internal mechanisms of biological and technological evolution are completely different. However it’s the end results that are virtually identical (identical except for the extreme time differece).
So biological evolution will give a species a new appropriate biological tool when it requires it to help it survive. It isn’t ‘designed’, but the appropriate tools are developed when they are needed. Likewise, technological evolution gives our species appropriate new tools as we require them to help us survive. They usually aren’t designed (similar to biological evolution techno evolution usually gives us the appropriate tool through random developments) but they do give us the appropriate tools as we need them. _________________ "Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:19 pm Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
Omnitir wrote:
So biological evolution will give a species a new appropriate biological tool when it requires it to help it survive. It isn’t ‘designed’, but the appropriate tools are developed when they are needed.
No, they aren't. Mutations are not developed, they are random chance.
Evolution is the result of random genetic mutations that promote survival and reproduction and that are incorporated into the gene pool sometimes giving rise to whole new species.
Evolution gives no tools, mutations do. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:45 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
Quote:
Attention on important problems in science can have dramatic payback.
Of course... but which "breakthroughs"?
<And more importantly... when?>
See first post this thread _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:06 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
garyp wrote:
Similarly, technological breakthroughs are almost never random, they are the product of data, understanding and usually the exposure to concepts from outside the domain. Pure type 5 innovations are extremely rare.
Not random, but very often accidental or unexpected. Science has coined the phrase, "the Principle of Limited Sloppiness".
Quote:
In 1791 Luigi Galvani was an anatomist at the University of Bologna. Galvani was investigating the nerves in frog legs, and had threaded some legs on copper wire hanging from a balcony in such a way that a puff of wind caused the legs to touch the iron railing. A spark snapped and the legs jerked violently (even today, we speak of being "galvanized" into action). In one unintended step, Galvani had observed a closed electrical circuit, and related electricity to nerve impulses.
In 1879, Louis Pasteur inoculated some chickens with cholera bacteria. It was supposed to kill them, but Pasteur or one of his assistants had accidentally used a culture from an old jar and the chickens merely got sick and recovered. Later, Pasteur inoculated them again with a fresh culture that he knew to be virulent, and the chickens didn't even get sick. Chance had led him to discover the principle of vaccination for disease prevention.
Wilhelm Roentgen was experimenting with electrical discharges one evening at the University of Wurzburg in 1895. There was a screen coated with a barium compound lying to one side, and Roentgen noticed that it would fluoresce when an electrical discharge would occur in the tube he was watching. On reaching for the screen, Roentgen got his hand between the discharge tube and the screen and saw the bones of his own hand through the shadow of his skin. In 1901, Roentgen received the Nobel prize for his accidental discovery of X-rays.
Alexander Fleming was a young bacteriologist at St. Mary's Hospital in London in 1928. One day in his cluttered laboratory, he noticed that a culture dish of bacteria had been invaded by a mold whose spore must have drifted in through an open window. Under the microscope, he saw that, all around the mold, the individual bacteria that he had been growing had burst. He saved the mold, and from it produced the first penicillin.
_________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 4:13 pm Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
MonteQuest wrote:
garyp wrote:
I never said variants arise because they are needed.
Yes, you did.
Quote:
In biological evolution the appropriate ‘breakthrough’ occur as they are needed (over a very long time period though).
Sorry, but that's Omnitir, not me.
Quote:
Natural selection had nothing to do with it. The rise and fall of the melanic form of the peppered moth was due to differential bird predation in more or less polluted regions.
Well, that's my definition of a natural selection driver. Red in tooth and claw.
MonteQuest wrote:
Not random, but very often accidental or unexpected. Science has coined the phrase, "the Principle of Limited Sloppiness".
While such events do happen, and tend to be both responsible for significant left turns in knowledge, and to be widely reported - they are only a small percentage of the total number of innovations.
As part of TRIZ, inventions, innovations and patentable ideas were surveyed and classified into 5 levels:
Level 1) Obvious solutions drawn from only a few possible options = 32% of innovations
Level 2) Small improvements in existing systems = 45%
Level 3) Significant improvements in existing systems, with ideas from outside the domain = 18%
Level 4) Solutions found from within science but not in the normal domain of technology = 4%
Level 5) Solutions from outside the confines of known scientific knowledge < 1%
While the level 5 inventions get the attention, its much more often that levels 3 & 4 deliver the key developments that people use.
As a few for instances:
Enhancing the efficiency of solar cells by sandwiching different layers with different absorption spectra to cover the visible band is a level 2 invention - its fairly obvious, but its significantly raised the capability of PV systems
Hard disk densities have continued to rise in the main as a result of developments like 'pixie dust', 'perpendicular recording', etc. One of those techniques - 'Partial Response Maximum Likelihood' could probably be said to have come from level 3 innovation - marrying uncertainty techniques with magnetic sensors.
Ultrasonic cleaning of materials was a level 3/4 innovation, significantly different and outside the norm of solvent cleaning.
Penicillin could be said to be a level 5 invention, outside technology and science at the time.
How does this apply to energy and Aaron's restated question?
Well firstly I'd suggest there is ample scope for level 2/3 enhancements to biofuels, different systems approaches, bioengineered crops, etc. A total guess, but I'd guess there is a doubling in the efficiency of such systems to be expected within medium term timeframes.
Quantum dot solar cells might turn out to deliver noticable improvements with a level 4 innovation.
We could probably expect some level 1 & 2 innovations in the extraction and use of fossil fuels - we already know how to improve efficiency significantly (its just cheaper to do the same old thing).
Oil shales and tar sands could also expect maybe a doubling in the efficiency of extraction via novel level 3 type techniques - maybe using bioremediation type techniques.
Ultracapacitors seems to be a hot area, with quite a bit of movement and the chance of level 4 innovations utilising carbon nanotubes, etc.
Microturbines already exist, but we could see those moving into many more areas and maybe making level 2 type changes in how you power electric vehicles.
Outside all of these, there is the possibility of a significant development in nanomachine technologies, acting as a basis for molecular engineering in all of these fields and possibly even greater wins the extent of which are impossible to limit.
Not forgetting fission, fusion of course.
And if you want a real level 5 left field discovery, someone might figure out zero point energy. I'd put the possibility of that somewhere similar to everyone voluntarily embracing permaculture ideas and powerdown.
There is a lot of scope for innovations within the extent of existing human knowledge, its a case of the right type of attention, with the right support and less obstructions placed in the way.
Its possible to be positive. Even if the decline rate is 8%, that's only 3.6 Gb equivalent to find extra each year from about 20 different potential routes; or about 0.18 Gb equivalent on average from each. Taxing, difficult, but not hopeless. _________________ Arcane Domain
Joined: Apr 02, 2005 Posts: 1001 Location: Down Under
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:36 am Post subject: Re: Primary Science & Asynchronous Development
Excellent post Garyp
MonteQuest wrote:
Variants do not arise because they are needed as you alluded to earlier. They arise by random processes governed by the laws of genetics. For today, the central point is the chance occurrence of variation, some of which is adaptive, and the weeding out by natural selection of the best adapted varieties.
Cause and effect. The cause for the variants obviously is not because a species decides it needs some new biological tool to help it survive. However the end result, a new tool or ability for survival, has come about because it helps it survive. Variants do arise because they are needed. The mechanisms that get the variants there are random, but the resulting variants are perfectly adapted to enable better survival. They exist because they are needed.
MonteQuest wrote:
Omnitir wrote:
So biological evolution will give a species a new appropriate biological tool when it requires it to help it survive. It isn’t ‘designed’, but the appropriate tools are developed when they are needed.
No, they aren't. Mutations are not developed, they are random chance.
Evolution is the result of random genetic mutations that promote survival and reproduction and that are incorporated into the gene pool sometimes giving rise to whole new species.
Evolution gives no tools, mutations do.
Again, cause and effect – your focusing on the internal mechanisms rather then the end result. The result is that biological species end up with the appropriate tools at the appropriate times. And this is also how technological progress works.
Technological evolution is like biological evolution on fast forward. The most important technologies often aren’t intentionally develop but are spin-off results that happen to have a suitable place in society. When there is a need to be filled, often a spin-off technology will fill that need.
For example, millions of people in underdeveloped countries now have clean and safe drinking water, not thanks to focusing on the problem, but thanks to the space shuttle program. The vast majority of the most useful technologies in use today came about as spin off technologies.
Partially through random ‘mutation’, or rather random developments, which occur at an ever increasing pace, we will be able to adapt to peak oil. _________________ "Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
