This is the fourth post in a series reviewing Perry Marshall's Book Evolution 2.0, Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design. To see the first post with links to each article in the series, start here.
In Perry Marshall's book Evolution 2.0, he falsely claims:
"All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information. Therefore DNA was designed by a mind." (pg 192, emphasis added)On his website he gives us a challenge, offering millions of dollars to the person that can prove him wrong (though, as you'll see in my post on the challenge, it's specifically worded so that he will never have to pay). In the challenge he says:
"Show an example of information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one" (pulled from cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/ on June 3, 2016)In his book he goes on to say:
"The prize goes to the first person who discovers a natural process that produces a complete communication system without having to specify (design) the encoding and decoding rules in advance. Such a process, if discovered, would revolutionize modern science." (pg 201, emphasis added)Well, as it turns out, scientists have discovered a natural process that produces code without a mind, and it did revolutionize modern science! It's called... wait for it... evolution by natural selection!
In my last post I showed how creatures with minds can develop "communication systems without having to specify the encoding and decoding rules in advance". If you haven't yet read that post, I recommend doing so before moving on. Here I will build on that post showing how the same simple rules can allow any two evolving entities, with or without thinking minds, to develop communication systems as well. Intelligent designers need not apply.
Here we'll look at not just one, but two of the many known and documented examples of evolved communication systems: that between plants and pollinators, and that between bacteria. After each example I'll outline what we know about how each system evolved. Finally, I'll end by showing how Perry Marshall could edit his book to make it accurate.
Evolved Communication System Between Plants and Pollinators
Flowering plants, even though they don't have thinking minds, actively communicate with insects and other pollinators on a regular basis. This communication system evolved under selective pressure to improve their reproduction. Insects carry plant pollen (similar to sperm in mammals) from one plant to the next, where it's able to fertilize the second plant's seeds. In simple terms, bugs help flowering plants have sex. Flowers are relatively new in evolutionary history, the first fossils date to about 130 million years ago. Most plants before then used wind or environmental water to transfer their sperm to other plants instead. Insects, however, are much more efficient.
Flowers act as encoded messages between plants and pollinators. Bright colored pigments and strong smelling fragrances are signals, telling animals that the plants are ready for pollination. A nectar treat is often provided as a bribe to get the animal to do the work (though some insects simply eat pollen, spreading crumbs from plant to plant which also does the job). When a flower has been thoroughly pollinated, the plant stops producing fragrances, and produces oxidizing enzymes instead. These enzymes dull the pigments and eventually kill the petals of the flower. A simplified breakdown of the plant's evolved code can be understood as follows:
The plant encodes the message, transmits it via the flower, and the bee (or other pollinator) decodes the message and obeys its orders. This is a legitimate coded system that developed without any need of intervention from a designer.
How did the flower communication system evolve?
In the last post we learned that in humans and other thinking animals, codes can emerge from noise through a process described in signalling theory:
- Cues are accidentally transmitted by a sender
- Meaning is assigned to the cue by a receiver
- The sender, if rewarded for sending the cue, can then amplify the cue, making it a "signal"
This process works quickly for creatures with brains, but also works on a longer time scale for anything capable of evolving through descent with modification, acted upon by selection.
The evolution of flowers
While we can't go back in time to see how flowers initially evolved, we can examine fossil evidence, as well as look at examples of non-flowering plants alive today for clues on how this ability may have evolved. To keep things short, I'll just go over comparative anatomy here.
Before flowers evolved, plants mainly transferred pollen to their mates via the wind or moving water. Many of these plants' descendants are still alive today and continue to use the wind. A cone from Pinus taeda is shown below. When the season is right, it releases puffs of pollen into the air to be carried by the wind to potential mates.
 |
| By Pinethicket at English Wikipedia |
Any insect that either learns or evolves to associate the color yellow with pollen, will have access to nutritious food and be favored by natural selection. This is step 2 in the process of evolving a signal!
Many plants defend against pollen eaters by producing bad tasting or even toxic chemicals in their pollen. Other's, however, have evolved to exploit the pest's activities. Pollen eaters often visit multiple plants in their quest for food. Any pollen stuck to their bodies can pollinate female cones on other plants. This can give a plant a reproductive advantage because insects are often more accurate than the wind at finding the other cones that need to be fertilized. Under these conditions, any mutation in a plant that makes its pollen cue stronger (brighter colored pigments for example) can be magnified by natural selection. Once this happens, Step 3 in the development of language has occurred, a legitimate signal has evolved!
 |
| Beetle attracting pollen cone - Photo by L. Shyamal |
There are several examples of non-flowering plants that have evolved signalling behavior with insects. In many cases, it's much milder than what we see in flowering plants. Cycadales for example, are an order of gymnosperms (non-flowering plants) that have developed a pollination relationship with beetles. Pigmented cones appear to act as a signal to the beetles when pollen is ready. Smilar signaling strategies have evolve in other species. Studying these systems helps us understand how the flowering system likely started.
Evolved Communication System Between Bacteria
Bacteria are tiny creatures living in a world of giants. As such, it's often a survival advantage for them to work as a group to get a task done, either when digesting a large food source, or trying to defend against an enemy. Bacteria don't have eyes, ears, or thinking minds like we do. That said, they have evolved communication systems that allow them to detect and then automatically coordinate their efforts with neighbors.
Many bacteria make and send out chemical signals called acylhomoserine lactones (AHLs) which you can think of as smells. Most species studied have at least one scent or “word” they use to communicate with others of their kind. The system consists of an enzyme (encoder) that produces the communication molecule (message) which then seeps out into their surroundings. A receptor on the cell wall (decoder), which is similar to the receptors you have in your nose, detects the scent and triggers the bacteria to behave in a specific way.
When a bacteria is alone, it will catch an occasional whiff of its own AHLs but the scent is weak. When the bacteria is surrounded by friends, the smell is overwhelming, triggering behaviors that are only successful when all the cells participate in unison.
This is how bacteria of the same species talk and automatically coordinate their efforts.
For the most part, each species has it’s own AHL molecule which can only be detected by other members of the species. This essentially means their language consists of one word, and is private. That said, most bacteria also make a universal molecule called AI-2.
At least two species, Vibrio harveyi and Salmonella typhimurium, have receptors for their own secret AHLs, but also have receptors that detect AI-2s from other species! This means that in their world, not only can they smell how many friends are near, they can also smell how many strangers are around. As you might expect, different behaviors are triggered by different ratios of AHLs and AI-2s.
Many more signals in the bacteria’s language likely exist and are just waiting for us to discover them. That said, we can present what we know so far in the translation chart below:
How did bacterial communication evolve?
So far, the origin of the AHL molecule has not yet been discovered. AI-2, on the other hand, is now known to have started out as.... wait for it... an accidental cue!
Researchers initially thought AI-2 was a special molecule produced exclusively for inter-species communication, but in 2002, AI-2 was discovered to be a simple waste product, bacterial urine if you will.
Vibrio harveyi and Salmonella typhimurium both evolved receptors to pick up on the cue which essentially allows them to count strangers. Both have since evolved unique behaviors that are triggered by the smell of strangers, and it appears they have also evolved ways to control when and how much AI-2 they will release. If it's true that they really can control release of AI-2, then it has gone from being a simple cue, to a legitimate signal!
How Perry Marshall's book should be edited
Evolved Communication System Between Bacteria
Bacteria are tiny creatures living in a world of giants. As such, it's often a survival advantage for them to work as a group to get a task done, either when digesting a large food source, or trying to defend against an enemy. Bacteria don't have eyes, ears, or thinking minds like we do. That said, they have evolved communication systems that allow them to detect and then automatically coordinate their efforts with neighbors.
Many bacteria make and send out chemical signals called acylhomoserine lactones (AHLs) which you can think of as smells. Most species studied have at least one scent or “word” they use to communicate with others of their kind. The system consists of an enzyme (encoder) that produces the communication molecule (message) which then seeps out into their surroundings. A receptor on the cell wall (decoder), which is similar to the receptors you have in your nose, detects the scent and triggers the bacteria to behave in a specific way.
When a bacteria is alone, it will catch an occasional whiff of its own AHLs but the scent is weak. When the bacteria is surrounded by friends, the smell is overwhelming, triggering behaviors that are only successful when all the cells participate in unison.
This is how bacteria of the same species talk and automatically coordinate their efforts.
For the most part, each species has it’s own AHL molecule which can only be detected by other members of the species. This essentially means their language consists of one word, and is private. That said, most bacteria also make a universal molecule called AI-2.
At least two species, Vibrio harveyi and Salmonella typhimurium, have receptors for their own secret AHLs, but also have receptors that detect AI-2s from other species! This means that in their world, not only can they smell how many friends are near, they can also smell how many strangers are around. As you might expect, different behaviors are triggered by different ratios of AHLs and AI-2s.
Many more signals in the bacteria’s language likely exist and are just waiting for us to discover them. That said, we can present what we know so far in the translation chart below:
How did bacterial communication evolve?
So far, the origin of the AHL molecule has not yet been discovered. AI-2, on the other hand, is now known to have started out as.... wait for it... an accidental cue!
Researchers initially thought AI-2 was a special molecule produced exclusively for inter-species communication, but in 2002, AI-2 was discovered to be a simple waste product, bacterial urine if you will.
Vibrio harveyi and Salmonella typhimurium both evolved receptors to pick up on the cue which essentially allows them to count strangers. Both have since evolved unique behaviors that are triggered by the smell of strangers, and it appears they have also evolved ways to control when and how much AI-2 they will release. If it's true that they really can control release of AI-2, then it has gone from being a simple cue, to a legitimate signal!
Biologists have been studying and carefully documenting the evolution of coded communication for several decades now. If Perry wishes to be honest in his portrayal of scientific knowledge, the message of his book should be modified as follows:
Spoiler alert, the answer is yes!
Further reading
Signalling theory and the use of language in bacteria
Flowers and the fossil record New cue detection directly observed evolving in bacteria (in this case, they detected a new food: D-Arabinose) An overview of signalling theory with many examples of naturally evolved communication systems (see chapter 14)
"DNA is code. All codes whose origin we know are either designed by a mind, or have evolved through natural selection. Therefore, the genetic code was either designed by a mind, evolved, or produced by a currently unknown process."
Most scientists investigating the origin of life are doing so under the hypothesis that the genetic code evolved into its current form. This hypothesis brings us to the question of our next post: Can evolution work without the genetic code?
Spoiler alert, the answer is yes!
Further reading
Signalling theory and the use of language in bacteria
Flowers and the fossil record New cue detection directly observed evolving in bacteria (in this case, they detected a new food: D-Arabinose) An overview of signalling theory with many examples of naturally evolved communication systems (see chapter 14)
<< Previous Post In Series :::::: Next Post In Series (coming soon) >>
Some creationists demand to be shown an example of where natural forces have created X, where X is some feature usually associated with living creatures. Of course, you are not allowed to use any living creature as an example; they want a DIFFERENT example of something as complex, functional, or interesting as LIFE, having arisen naturally.
ReplyDeleteThis is a trick question. If something has the attributes we associate with life, it would BE LIFE. So the demand is essentially "show me life that is not life" which is a contradiction.
This is what Marshall is doing with his "challenge". He has found a feature that seems to be unique to living organisms, namely communication via cues that we could call a code or language, and he demands to see this feature in some non-living system.
Pure dishonesty, if you ask me.
Perry Marshall is not being dishonest. His ideas, and this challenge, arise from his world-view as an engineer and businessman. He is not able to make the conceptual leap from "common sense" (which is often empirically wrong) to linguistic analysis and the cognitive sciences (where conclusions are often counter-intuitive).
ReplyDeleteWhile your reasoning is totally accurate from my point of view, it is unfair to accuse Perry of being willfully dishonest.
Hello Richard. Fancy meeting you here. And I completely agree with you on both counts. In fact I think Trey is doing the same thing in our own discussion when he claims that personality can only arose from personality. You have to deny evolution to make this argument work since evolution does provide an answer to such complex systems as human beings.
DeleteWhile your examples of language evolution are intriguing, by your own admission they occur between beings that have sone type of goal seeking intelligence. The prize is specifically for the creation of a binary or similar type of code to be created where no intelligence previously exists except for designing the correct environment for this to occur. While I see your point that the mentioned organisms first evolved from nothing, you give no direct examples of how that intelligence came to be. This weakens your point.
ReplyDeleteSo you mean languages didn't come about because God confused the people at the Tower of Babel, but rather they arose as accidental cues became signals in ever increasing complexity?
ReplyDeleteWhat Genesis does show is that humans have been intrigued and puzzled by reality for thousands of years. It also shows that humans demanding answers and certainty can sometimes stubbornly refuse better explanations because of the anxiety such new information creates in the mind. Dogma is the result and stunts human progress. This is the main reason I am no longer a believer. While I no longer have that lovely feeling of assurance that simplistic religion once gave me I do have a mind free to explore new ideas and possibilities without fear of being cast into hell as a heretic.
It seems to me that you are majoring on the minors. I would think that any language/code that developed in living entities came into existence because of the original code for life. I don't see that Perry's challenge to name anything based on code/information that was not there in the beginning is refuted by subsequent codes. The claims you make about his claims being false seem to me to be red herrings. The challenge he throws out is still there. Can you even imagine how life might come from non-life--let along prove it? If so, you could get rich!
ReplyDeleteDecades ago I threw out a challenge to the constituents of the American Scientific Affiliation (Christian) that created a long discussion. The common understanding then seemed to be that the evolution of life basically went from the simple to the complex. So I asked if science had ever discovered anything truly simple. Most of the subsequent discussion was about "simple," microscopic forms of life. But no living thing (because of the original code) is ever really simple. And nothing in physics is simple. No one that I know of can explain the four fundamental forces of nature nor suggest their origin.
I believe Robert Jastrow got it right: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
The previous post was from me: Dean Ohlman. I did not know how to change the "unknown" status.
ReplyDeletehowdy, your websites are really good. I appreciate your work. whose number is this
ReplyDelete//“Flowers act as ENCODED messages between plants and pollinators…The plant ENCODES the message, transmits it via the flower, and the bee (or other pollinator) DECODES the message and obeys its orders. This is a legitimate CODED system that developed without any need of intervention from a designer.”//
ReplyDeleteThis is a fallacy of equivocation. Elsewhere you’ve used the terms “encoded” and “code” in the full, literal sense when saying that the genetic code is a code, and you’ve gone into some detail explaining why it is a code. Here, however, you’re simply pasting those terms onto your flower signalling example without demonstrating that full, literal encoding is occurring. Apart from occasional metaphorical use of these terms (like “encoded signal” for example), nowhere in the literature on signalling theory is signalling seriously considered to be a coding system. By analogy, the difference between biological signals and actual codes is like the difference between body language and the various sign language conventions. The various gestures and behaviours of body language might have evolved over many generations. But if we said that a yawning person is “encoding” a message saying “I’m sleepy”, then we could only validly mean that in a metaphorical sense. Insofar as it could be regarded as a sign for “I’m sleepy”, yawning is nothing but an indexic sign. That is, it means “I’m sleepy” only because of existential facts. That is, there are physical causal relations between the act of yawning and the state of being sleepy. Yawning is not an arbitrarily selected act that was chosen out of multiple other possible acts to be a symbol for “I’m sleepy”. In contrast, every hand gesture that makes up a sign language convention has been arbitrarily selected to be a symbol for something. This arbitrariness is even clearer when one considers the fact that different sign language conventions often use different gestures as symbols for the same thing. American Sign Language, for example, has a completely different set of hand gestures to for alphabetic letters than, say, French Sign Language. That is what makes a sign language a code and body language not a code. Sign language is a conventional system of symbolic signs, while body language involves various indexic signs. So, it would be absurd to claim that a sign language convention is purely the result of evolution from body language cues and signals.