# Evolution: Objections to an Internal Mechanism **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 15, 2001, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830 "2001-09-15T16:24:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/41 "2001-09-18T16:33:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by buddy1 \* > \*\*…the dopey buddy of Joseph Stalin, who insisted that he could grow corn in Siberia? I ask this because , many years ago, a western biologist went through some of Lysenko’s research, and found some very slight evidence that evolutionary change could be triggered by environment. I though that lamarkism had been totally disproved…anybody know any more about this? \*\* Sorry Buddy, I’m rushing through these replies and forgot to answer the actual question you asked. I don’t know any more about it but I would be interested to hear if anyone else has. Jorolat ---
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/42 "2001-09-18T16:49:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DaveW \* > \*\*I think I get it. I wish you could stop me if I’m wrong, **jorolat** , but here goes, anyway: > > By “internal mechanism,” you mean some process which changes an individual’s genes (or just the genes within the germ cels), yes? This would imply that some part of evolution is self-directed\*\* Specifically a homeostatic internal mechanism. If organisms are integrated then imagine for a moment there is a center to that integration, an apex to the homeostatic hierarchy in the form of a _localized_ area of natural equilibrium. In post notochord organisms, such as man, this would be located in the older (in evolutionary terms) structures of the brain. In these regions physiological homeostasis is often defined by “set points” such as temperature: If the temperature rises about the homeostatic mean then initiate _co-ordinated_ responses to reduce it. If the temperature begins to fail to meet the set point then initiate physiological processes in order to maintain it. In principle a homeostatic evolutionary mechanism would operate in exactly the same way only in this instance the “set point” would be the current genome in the germ cells. A fuller explanation can be found at the URL in my signature (nb the purpose of the evolutionary changes would be to restore equilibrium in the _next_ generation(s) - no “direction” is involved beyond this). Jorolat ps If you do visit the page then “The Bacterial Model” explains why I feel the phenomena of Stationary Phase Mutations may be connected to an internal mechanism. ---
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/43 "2001-09-18T17:02:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by toadspittle \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by jorolat \* > > \*\* > > Natural Selection is an _explanation_ a la geocentric theory and you can’t test it. I am suggesting that there is a mechanism rather than a process. > > > > Jorolat \*\* > > How do you propose testing this mechanism? > > Have you found any evidence that a living body’s cells can communicate such complex information to germ cells? \*\* I’ve just answered half a dozen posts and now have to go so I’ll take the easy way out and suggest you look at the method of testing appropriate to the possible mechanism that I’m interested in: [http://members.aol.com/jorolat/mot.html](http://members.aol.com/jorolat/mot.html) Organisms are integrated, steroid hormones enter directly into the nucleus of germ cells (see earlier post, I would answer more fully but I have to rush, if necessary I’ll come back to it) Jorolat ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/44 "2001-09-18T17:56:20Z")
Read some of your site, jorolat. Interesting thoughts; but I’d have to see a LOT of rigorously-defended, peer-reviewed testing before I believed it. One easier way I can imagine that external pressures could affect genetic material: 1. High levels of environmental stress cause an increase in the production of stress hormones, etc., in the body 2. The high levels of stress hormones increase chances of genetic mutations in the germ cells (not too far-fetched, if stress is indeed a factor in causing cancer; perhaps such things increase mutations in other cells, leading to runaway cell division…) 3. Such mutations cause a burst of genetic diversity in the species, resulting in some creatures that are better adapted to the new environment than the norm (and some that are less well-adapted) So I can see how you could increase the rate of mutation, but not how you could increase the rate of “beneficial” mutations. ---
**Author:** ![DaveW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@DaveW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaveW)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/45 "2001-09-18T18:31:13Z")
**jorolat** wrote: > [@](#): > > I’ve just answered half a dozen posts and now have to go so I’ll take the easy way out and suggest you look at the method of testing appropriate to the possible mechanism that I’m interested in: > > [http://members.aol.com/jorolat/mot.html](http://members.aol.com/jorolat/mot.html) > > Organisms are integrated, steroid hormones enter directly into the nucleus of germ cells (see earlier post, I would answer more fully but I have to rush, if necessary I’ll come back to it) Well, I’ve got plenty of objections to the ‘testing’ page just cited. Not least of which is that doing a Web search for “willow moth caterpillar” or +“frederick griffiths” +rats turns up _ **only** _ pages written by you. Given that your premise appears to be over 100 years old, I guess I shouldn’t find this surprising. A more specific objection turns on the caterpillar results: obviously, using the side of a leaf was a behaviour these organisms already had, otherwise the first generation all would have died on leaves lacking tips. The results must then be interpreted solely upon measurements of what percentage of caterpillars “preferred” using the tips of leaves before and after this generation presented with the snipped tips. 19 whole caterpillars? Far too small a sample size to be considered at all conclusive, or even highly suggestive. Hormones enter the nucleus? Sure. Are they capable of inducing a process whereby the genetic code is actually modified? _That_ is the mechanism you appear to be promoting, and I think we would have found it in the last forty years or so if it exists. Besides which, I don’t personally see any reason to believe that any sort of homeostatic mechanism _other than_ natural selection is necessary, except, perhaps, to explain the rats (if such an experiment returns repeatable results). ---
**Author:** ![CheapBastid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8baadc/32.png) [@CheapBastid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CheapBastid)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/46 "2001-09-18T19:19:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by toadspittle \* > **The high levels of stress hormones increase chances of genetic mutations in the germ cells (not too far-fetched, if stress is indeed a factor in causing cancer; perhaps such things increase mutations in other cells, leading to runaway cell division…)** Am I the only one who’s remembers seeing refrence to stress induced mutation here on the boards? ---
**Author:** ![CheapBastid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8baadc/32.png) [@CheapBastid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CheapBastid)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/47 "2001-09-18T20:24:23Z")
I meant [Stress-induced Gene Expression](http://www.isinet.com/isi/products/cc/cbc/2000-08-28/BQ40M/) ---
**Author:** ![Firx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Firx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Firx)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2001, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/48 "2001-09-18T20:29:49Z")
"Okay, Firx, that’s a hypothetical ‘body plan’ many steps away from the root fo the tree. And the G&L quote from jorolat has them talking about basic body plans, from which I gather that turning a hand into a foot is pretty much a superficial change. Whereas turning a hand into, say, a second working head would be much more drastic, and definitely a change in body plan. As far as “integrated organisms” go, it seems that G&L are speaking of such as a way of thinking about an organism (as opposed to ‘atomization’), and not as any definite point in a species’ evolution. I mean, there’s no way a foot will survive without being ‘integrated’ into the rest of an organism, no matter how closely it functions as a hand, so I’m not sure that your use of “integrated” is the same as G&L’s." -DaveW Fair objections, DaveW. I only made the foot remark to illustrate that structures which are functionally analogous may not be related from an evolutionary standpoint. As a different example I might cite the platypus, which, if I remember correctly, was the subject of much confusion when first discovered. Just because it lays eggs doesn’t mean that it’s related to birds. As for beeing “many steps away from the foot of the tree”, the vast majority of organisms [are/i] far from the foot of the tree. How does it help us to get too general? All vertebrates are similar in that they have backbones, but there are lots of other differences that come into play after that. I’m sorry about the ‘integrated organism’ bit. I think you are right about G and L meaning it as a way of thinking about organisms. I would add, though, that they mean it as a way of explaining that not every part of an organism is the direct result of natural selection, and that there are limitations in the way an organism can change imposed by the entire body (i.e. some changes are precluded by other elements of the bodyplan). (What I originally meant was that saying an organism has a “foot” doesn’t say anything useful because many organisms have feet, and the term “foot” doesn’t mean anything more than ‘something to walk on’; it doesn’t describe the organism’s foot or say anything about how the foot is related to the rest of the body. True, I still say, but not what we are talking about.) I apologize for not being clear. Jorolat: ## Originally posted by Jorolat: ## quote: Originally posted by Firx “Populations are made up of non-evolving individuals and an internal mechanism, whereby evolutionary changes would appear in succeeding generations, contains no direct contradiction to “Populations evolve…(etc.)”. I’m just trying to see whether there’s anything I’m missing concerning this objection.” -Jorolat What do you mean by “…internal mechanism, whereby evolutionary changes would appear in succeeding generations…”? Isn’t the method by which net changes (in allele frequency) appear over time known as “natural selection”, and the net result of many (usually small) changes known as “evolution”? ## Also, what exactly is your aim here? are you trying to suggest that there is a process seperate from natural selection working to order body plans? At first glance the geocentric theory would appear quite different from the earlier belief that the world was flat. They do share one characteristic though - they are both egocentric. It’s a question of whether one wants an intellectually satisfying explanation of a reality or whether one wants to discover the true nature of that reality - hence the reference to how well the geocentric theory explained the known facts and yet was completely wrong. Outside of the human intellect there are only individual organisms, lotsa 'em, and so I do feel there is something else: an internal evolutionary mechanism. My aim here, however, remains the same - to find out what objections there may be to an internal mechanism that I’m not aware of. Reading your post again, and in case I haven’t made it clear, I don’t feel the mutations that occur in the germ cells are entirely random but I would stress that neither do I feel they are directed. ## Jorolat I agree that both the ‘flat earth theory’ and the ‘geocentric theory’ were egocentric, but I don’t understand why you are making this point. Your first reference to geocentric theory was a comparison between it and natural selection: “Natural Selection is an explanation a la geocentric theory and you can’t test it. I am suggesting that there is a mechanism rather than a process.” -Jorolat A comparison which I hope you have abandoned. Incidentally, geocentrism wasn’t intellectually satisfying because it didn’t accurately explain what was happening. Notice that it was abandoned for a theory that fit the facts better? Now for a direct answer to your question: What does it matter whether the mutations in the germ cells are entirely random? Let’s just assume that they aren’t - that they are influenced by the hormones an organism produces, for example. Natural selection will just ‘select’ the most appropriate mutation anyway. The way I see it, the only way influencing the germ cells would be meaningful is if you could a) somehow be able to cause mutations that have specific consequences (a BIG if) and b) anticipate environmental changes in such a way that you would be able to mutate beforehand and thus be ‘selected’ ( another big if). I suppose that if you could cause an unusual number of mutations in the right places you would get more variety in a number of traits, but that hardly counts as “ordering” or “directing” the bodyplan. By the way, if there is an internal factor to evolution how do you explain the evolution-free Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium, a place without “outside evolutionary forces”? It would seem that if all outside forces were removed evolution would continue due to the “internal mechanism”. ---
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/49 "2001-09-19T14:26:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DaveW \* > \*\*I think I get it. I wish you could stop me if I’m wrong, **jorolat** , but here goes, anyway: > > By “internal mechanism,” you mean some process which changes an individual’s genes (or just the genes within the germ cels), yes? This would imply that some part of evolution is self-directed,\*\* Not at all, the possible mechanism I’m interested in is _indirect_ \*\* > [@](#): > > Is this [an internal mechanism] _actually_ testable? Technically, yes, I suppose. If it’s something which is supposed to work at the lowest levels of life, then one could simply grow a ton of bacteria, and measure the mutation rate while subjecting them to all sorts of stressors. If they mutate more often than would be expected by chance, that’d support the idea that something more than simple evolution was taking place.\*\* This is taken from one of my web pages ([http://members.aol.com/jorolat/spmah.html](http://members.aol.com/jorolat/spmah.html)) but obviously you could look up “Stationary Phase Mutations” on any search engeine: - N.B. The following sections are extracts from another article (referenced in the Conclusion) and refer to a technique [3] where an initial mutation is engineered in a strain of bacteria which then necessitates their being supplied with the “product” they have become dysfunctional for. An experiment would then begin, for example, when this product was removed. 1. Origin of the “Directed Mutation” hypothesis [Return to Index] 2. “Stationary-Phase Mutations” The nature of the resistance once shown to the heliocentric theory (“It’s absurd!”) indicates the intellect can have difficulty accepting a reality contrary to what has previously been taught. > [@](#): > > **The test becomes more complicated for sexual reproduction, since researchers would be forced to figure out which genes came from which parent, etc. But this isn’t impossible, just very difficult.** For the mechanism I’m interested in it would become easier > [@](#): > > \*\*And don’t forget that Einstein obviously saw lots of curious people - otherwise the quote might read “it is a miracle that curiosity _ever_ survives formal education.” \*\* I sometimes feel that Einstein was being polite. Jorolat ---
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/50 "2001-09-19T14:33:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DaveW \* > \*\*G&L wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > _But the important steps of evolution, the construction of the Bauplan itself and the transition between Baupläne, must involve some other unknown, and perhaps “internal,” mechanism_ > > Oh. OH! Okay. G&L are saying here that S, R & G are claiming that natural selection is fine for the “little things,” but for initiating or transitioning between forms, it’s not enough, and there must be “something else” (some strange “internal mechanism” that no biologist has yet found, or maybe God perhaps?) directing the process. > > What that “something else” is is not now known. Testing it, therefore, is next to impossible \*\* Anything that is _currently_ unknown can be termed “strange” in the same way as it can be called “mystical” but these words only reflect reaction to the novelty of the concept and not that any reality would have these attributes. An internal mechanism doesn’t have to be directional. Outa time again but I’ll be back later. Jorolat ps I should have made it clearer in the earlier post that the URL was in the signature. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/51 "2001-09-19T16:57:30Z")
Too… many… posts… overwhelmed. Must… write… like… straining… Captain… Kirk. ---
**Author:** ![DaveW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@DaveW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaveW)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/52 "2001-09-19T17:38:29Z")
**Jorolat** , please see this [BBQ Pit Thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=88249) ---
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/53 "2001-09-19T18:22:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Firx \* > \*\*Jorolat: > > “Natural Selection is an explanation a la geocentric theory and you can’t test it. I am suggesting that there is a mechanism rather than a process.” -Jorolat > > Not occording to the OED online, which says: > > “natural selection: the operation of natural causes by which those individuals of a species that are best adapted to the environment tend to be preserved and to transmit their characters, while those less adapted die out, so that in the course of generations the degree of adaptation to the environment tends progressively to increase.”\*\* This is still described from the intellect viewpoint. Sorry about the brevity but there are a number of posts to catch up on. > [@](#): > > \*\*I think the “weak” form says something more like ‘once the entire body plan is put together no really large changes can occur, and the process by which the body plan forms is guided by natural selection’. This would seem to be consistent with many of the ideas Gould expressed in “Wonderful life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History”. \*\* Somehow you’ve managed to \*reverse[/] what G and L actually say: “_But the **important** steps of evolution, the construction of the Bauplan itself and the transition between Baupläne, must involve some other unknown, and perhaps “internal,” mechanism._” (my emphasis) In other words Natural Selection can’t account for formation of the bauplan in the first place, Natural Selection’s role is _secondary_. Jorolat ---
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/54 "2001-09-19T18:48:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by toadspittle \* > \*\*Read some of your site, jorolat. > > Interesting thoughts; but I’d have to see a LOT of rigorously-defended, peer-reviewed testing before I believed it. > > One easier way I can imagine that external pressures could affect genetic material: > > 1. High levels of environmental stress cause an increase in the production of stress hormones, etc., in the body > > 2. The high levels of stress hormones increase chances of genetic mutations in the germ cells (not too far-fetched, if stress is indeed a factor in causing cancer; perhaps such things increase mutations in other cells, leading to runaway cell division…) > > 3. Such mutations cause a burst of genetic diversity in the species, resulting in some creatures that are better adapted to the new environment than the norm (and some that are less well-adapted) > > So I can see how you could increase the rate of mutation, but not how you could increase the rate of “beneficial” mutations. \*\* Could what we perceive to be stress actually be an upset to equilibrium (in the older structures of the brain)? In addition, though I don’t know enough to specifically say hormones _are_ the means of communication an internal mechanism would use (should one exist), their release is generally initiated by the areas of the brain in which I’m interested. Jorolat ---
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/55 "2001-09-19T19:10:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DaveW \* > \*\ ***jorolat** wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > I’ve just answered half a dozen posts and now have to go so I’ll take the easy way out and suggest you look at the method of testing appropriate to the possible mechanism that I’m interested in: > > > > [http://members.aol.com/jorolat/mot.html](http://members.aol.com/jorolat/mot.html) > > > > Organisms are integrated, steroid hormones enter directly into the nucleus of germ cells (see earlier post, I would answer more fully but I have to rush, if necessary I’ll come back to it) > > Well, I’ve got plenty of objections to the ‘testing’ page just cited. Not least of which is that doing a Web search for “willow moth caterpillar” or +“frederick griffiths” +rats turns up _ **only** _ pages written by you. Given that your premise appears to be over 100 years old, I guess I shouldn’t find this surprising. > > A more specific objection turns on the caterpillar results: obviously, using the side of a leaf was a behaviour these organisms already had, otherwise the first generation all would have died on leaves lacking tips. The results must then be interpreted solely upon measurements of what percentage of caterpillars “preferred” using the tips of leaves before and after this generation presented with the snipped tips. 19 whole caterpillars? Far too small a sample size to be considered at all conclusive, or even highly suggestive. > > Hormones enter the nucleus? Sure. Are they capable of inducing a process whereby the genetic code is actually modified? _That_ is the mechanism you appear to be promoting, and I think we would have found it in the last forty years or so if it exists. > > Besides which, I don’t personally see any reason to believe that any sort of homeostatic mechanism _other than_ natural selection is necessary, except, perhaps, to explain the rats (if such an experiment returns repeatable results). \*\* I had the same trouble trying to locate any further information regarding the caterpillars despite starting a thread here, talk origins, and other places. On the other hand I’m sure many other examples are available, its just a question of tracking suitable candidates down. The implication in the secondary source was that the willow moth caterpillars _always_ used the tips (else there would be no cause for comment). Its the potential significance of the results that interests me and from this perspective the sample size, in terms of numbers, isn’t important but the percentage exhibiting the change is. Despite the subsequent controversy I can’t remember anyone dismissing “Mitochondrial Eve” simply because, as only _one_ member of a population, she was statistically insignificant. It’s not a question of believing in an internal mechanism it’s a question of the fact that if one exists it would be _testable_. Natural Selection does not exist outside of the human intellect, there are only individual organisms. If such a mechanism exists part of the reason it hasn’t been found is because of the conditioned response “Internal Mechanism? Oh you mean Lamarck - nawwww!”. It was only twenty years ago that Gould and Lewontin were arguing that organisms should be analyzed as integrated wholes! Part of what I’m saying is if organisms are integrated wholes then when you look at the _nature_ of that integration you’ll find it is homeostatic. Jorolat ps The experiment on the rats was appalling but once again no specific mechanism was being tested for, it was a shot in the dark that appears to have been lucky - wish I could get my hands on the original source! ---
**Author:** ![Firx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Firx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Firx)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/56 "2001-09-19T19:21:34Z")
## Originally poster by Jorolat: ## Sorry about the brevity but there are a number of posts to catch up on. quote: ## I think the “weak” form says something more like ‘once the entire body plan is put together no really large changes can occur, and the process by which the body plan forms is guided by natural selection’. This would seem to be consistent with many of the ideas Gould expressed in “Wonderful life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History”. Somehow you’ve managed to reverse[/] what G and L actually say: “But the important steps of evolution, the construction of the Bauplan itself and the transition between Baupläne, must involve some other unknown, and perhaps “internal,” mechanism.” (my emphasis) In other words Natural Selection can’t account for formation of the bauplan in the first place, Natural Selection’s role is secondary. ## Jorolat I don’t have my copy on hand, so I can’t quote right now, but (correct me if I’m wrong; or better still, put the passage up here for us to see) isn’t Gould referring to the Cambrian Explosion here? If so, and _if that is what you have been talking about the entire time_, then I agree with you. The sudden appearance of complex multicellular life at the beginning of the cambrian does seem to need an explaination besides natural selection, and the subsequent extinction of many of the bodyplans found in the Burgess Shale certainly does. In fact, Gould goes on to form the argument that natural selection had nothing at all to do with the survival or destruction of those bodyplans, that they survived or died due to random chance. No matter how you cut it, the beginning of life as we know it is far from clear. Furthermore, I’m pretty sure that Gould states that each subsequent change (after the cambrian body type is selected, according to him by chance) limits the changes, to some degree, that can reasonably occur later. Thus, I think, the integrated organism: one in which all aspects of anatomy and physiology are taken into account for the purposes of looking at evolutionary change. A trait doesn’t have to be selected in order to influence the organism. ---
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/57 "2001-09-19T19:24:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CheapBastid \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by toadspittle \* > > **The high levels of stress hormones increase chances of genetic mutations in the germ cells (not too far-fetched, if stress is indeed a factor in causing cancer; perhaps such things increase mutations in other cells, leading to runaway cell division…)** > > Am I the only one who’s remembers seeing refrence to stress induced mutation here on the boards? \*\* I would be interested in reading this thread if anyone knows anything more about it. A search using “stress induced mutations” got zero hits on this message board. Jorolat ---
**Author:** ![jorolat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed655f/32.png) [@jorolat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jorolat)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/58 "2001-09-19T19:51:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Firx \* > \*\*Originally posted by Jorolat > > At first glance the geocentric theory would appear quite different from the earlier belief that the world was flat. They do share one characteristic though - they are both egocentric. > > It’s a question of whether one wants an intellectually satisfying explanation of a reality or whether one wants to discover the true nature of that reality - hence the reference to how well the geocentric theory explained the known facts and yet was completely wrong. Outside of the human intellect there are only individual organisms, lotsa 'em, and so I do feel there is something else: an internal evolutionary mechanism. > > My aim here, however, remains the same - to find out what objections there may be to an internal mechanism that I’m not aware of. > > Reading your post again, and in case I haven’t made it clear, I don’t feel the mutations that occur in the germ cells are entirely random but I would stress that neither do I feel they are directed. > > ## Jorolat > > I agree that both the ‘flat earth theory’ and the ‘geocentric theory’ were egocentric, but I don’t understand why you are making this point. Your first reference to geocentric theory was a comparison between it and natural selection: > > “Natural Selection is an explanation a la geocentric theory and you can’t test it. I am suggesting that there is a mechanism rather than a process.” -Jorolat > > A comparison which I hope you have abandoned. Incidentally, geocentrism wasn’t intellectually satisfying because it didn’t accurately explain what was happening. Notice that it was abandoned for a theory that fit the facts better? > Now for a direct answer to your question: > > What does it matter whether the mutations in the germ cells are entirely random? Let’s just assume that they aren’t - that they are influenced by the hormones an organism produces, for example. Natural selection will just ‘select’ the most appropriate mutation anyway. The way I see it, the only way influencing the germ cells would be meaningful is if you could a) somehow be able to cause mutations that have specific consequences (a BIG if) and b) anticipate environmental changes in such a way that you would be able to mutate beforehand and thus be ‘selected’ ( another big if). > > I suppose that if you could cause an unusual number of mutations in the right places you would get more variety in a number of traits, but that hardly counts as “ordering” or “directing” the bodyplan. > > By the way, if there is an internal factor to evolution how do you explain the evolution-free Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium, a place without “outside evolutionary forces”? It would seem that if all outside forces were removed evolution would continue due to the “internal mechanism”. \*\* The point in mentioning the geocentric theory was that “Natural Selection” is our perception of what happens whereas an internal mechanism may be the reason it happens. Natural Selection only exists in the intellect whereas an internal mechanisms may exist in all the organisms outside of the intellect. The nature of the resistance once shown to the heliocentric theory indicates the intellect can have difficulty accepting a reality if it is contary to what has been previously taught. I would argue that the geocentric theory was once _very_ intellectually/emotionally satisfying else why did they place Galileo under house arrest for the rest of his life? I would also argue that this punishment, no matter how rationalized, was clearly psychological in origin and due to the upset to the conditioning Galileo’s peers had received in being taught to believe in the Bible. After all, Galileo had a natural right to life _equal_ to that of his peers. A homeostatic mechanism would be _indirect_ and if no upset to equilibrium exceeded, or failed to meet, existing thresholds then no evolutionary changes would occur (eg the shark) Jorolat ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/59 "2001-09-19T19:51:54Z")
I think you’re attacking too many things at once here. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jorolat \ ***It’s not a question of believing in an internal mechanism it’s a question of the fact that if one exists it would be _testable_. Natural Selection does not exist outside of the human intellect, there are only individual organisms.** Seems to me that your major complaint with N.S. is that it doesn’t have a single, neatly wrapped cause. As in, “Oh, look, here’s chromosome 12, with the well-known ‘natural selection’ gene. If we remove it from the nucleus, then the organism’s offspring will never evolve.” N.S. has zillions of causes–more than we can usually predict (like trying to forecast the weather). It’s really more of a mathematical sorting than anything else–but that doesn’t mean it only exists in our heads. Just because it doesn’t rest entirely within the organism doesn’t mean it’s not real. Lemme see if I can think of an analogy… There’s no “mechanism” inside an individual snowflake that causes an avalanche to crush a town in the Alps. There are a ton of different factors involved that say whether that town gets squished or another one does or none do. (Not great, but the best I can think up right now.) > [@](#): > > **If such a mechanism exists part of the reason it hasn’t been found is because of the conditioned response “Internal Mechanism? Oh you mean Lamarck - nawwww!”.** I understand your logic. Perhaps you’re right, though I personally doubt it. > [@](#): > > \*\* It was only twenty years ago that Gould and Lewontin were arguing that organisms should be analyzed as integrated wholes! Part of what I’m saying is if organisms are integrated wholes then when you look at the _nature_ of that integration you’ll find it is homeostatic.\*\* This is two separate issues–(1) organisms are integrated wholes (2) said integrated wholes are homeostatic–each of which is debatable. I would agree that (1) is a fair assumption, although the degree to which you seem to want to carry it (that the genetic material of said integrated whole can be unconsciously altered by the life experience of the rest of the whole so that the offspring receive advantageous adaptations…) is more tenuous, IMO. And (2) does not really follow from (1), at least not by anything I’ve seen you post here or on your site. ---
**Author:** ![Gaspode](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/aeb1de/32.png) [@Gaspode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaspode)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2001, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830/60 "2001-09-19T23:22:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jorolat \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by toadspittle \* > > \*\*Am I the only one who’s remembers seeing refrence to stress induced mutation here on the boards? \*\* > > I would be interested in reading this thread if anyone knows anything more about it. A search using “stress induced mutations” got zero hits on this message board. > \*\* Perhaps [this thread?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=84636). Around the second or third page IIRC. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-objections-to-an-internal-mechanism/81830.md?page=4)