Essay "Problems with the Theory of Natural Selection"
david ford
Jesse976 <jess...@aol.com>:
J Fascinating essay, indeed, Dford.
LK No it isn't. It's basically the same essay he posted a
LK long while back (offered up as a FAQ contribution, if I
LK remember correctly). It looks as though he's done some
LK minor revisions, and has added some new references.
LK However, the fundamental structure remains unchanged, and
LK what argument there is ends up being rather uninteresting.
LK
LK Ford provides an adequate (but cursory) introduction to a
LK specific debate: the explanatory power of neo-Darwinian
LK gradualism in accounting for speciation. At best, he
LK demonstrates that speciation is still a controversial and
LK poorly understood phenomenon.
Neo-darwinists like to allege that certain observations (e.g.
'speciation,' where 'a species' is defined as 'a population of
reproductively-isolated organisms') lend credence to their view
of the powers of neo-Darwinian natural selection. I have no
quarrel with these observations of the biological world, nor does
the essay attempt to show that such haven't occurred, nor does
the essay attempt to show that such occurrences can't occur in
the future. Who is going to take on these observations? I for
one am not. Nor have I.
LK But one gets the distinct
LK sense that Ford thinks he is doing much more than a
LK literature review. He seems to think he is offering a
LK damning indictment of natural selection, and of any
LK account of evolution that orients itself with Darwin's
LK original framework. If neo-Darwinian gradualism fails,
LK Fords hints, then the entire Darwinian approach collapses.
I don't know what you mean by [LK]"the entire Darwinian
approach." If you mean 'the approach that says biology isn't the
product of intelligent design,' then let me be clear: I have no
illusions that the theory of NS essay defeats such an approach.
LK But Ford's essay does not support anything like this
LK ambitious case -- it's just wishful thinking on his part.
LK
LK I'll start taking Ford seriously when he gets around to
LK tackling the substantive issues he hints at. For
LK instance, like many creationists, Ford concedes that
LK mutations (and maybe even other possible sources of
LK variation, for instance the speculations of Stuart
LK Kaufmann) can bring about phenotypic changes.
Anybody that thinks mutations in organisms plus organisms'
environment can result in the formation of new structures that
possess new functions engages in wishful thinking.
(This is the perfect opportunity for someone to come along and
provide _evidence_ that mutations and environment _can_ result in
biological structures. Loren K., here's your chance.)
LK Ford also
LK seems to accept that the conservative forces of genetic
LK drift and natural selection can work upon these changes.
LK But imagine that a particular population of a given
LK species is separated into two or more distinct groups by
LK some geological process, and that each sub-population then
LK faces very different and changing environmental pressures,
LK including encounters with populations of different
LK organisms (from parasites to predators). Under these
LK conditions, what is to stop gradual (and not so gradual)
LK changes in these subpopulations from leading to distinct
LK populations that can no longer interbreed? Ford has
LK consistently avoided any direct and specific answer to
LK this very straightforward question.
I have utterly no problem with observations in which
subpopulations that had arisen via geographic isolation underwent
[LK]"gradual (and not so gradual) changes... leading to distinct
populations that can no longer interbreed."
LK Now to be clear, evolutionary theorists are still debating
LK answers to this and related questions, and will likely be
LK doing so for some time.
I thought it was practically universally accepted among
evolutionists that speciation (as I've defined it above) has been
observed to occur.
LK But just what does Ford think is
LK wrong with approaching this and other such questions from
LK within some sort of neo-Darwinian framework?
What do you mean by [LK]"some sort of neo-Darwinian framework"?
LK Does he
LK think that natural selection does not work as Darwin and
LK subsequent theorists predict?
My views on Darwin's and the neo-Darwinian view of NS's creative
powers, and the opposing observational data, are spelled out in
the essay.
LK Does he think that a
LK rejection or supplementing of gradualism critically
LK undermines other neo-Darwinian concepts and explanatory
LK models?
Rejection of gradualism involves a rejection of the neo-Darwinist
position, expounded by the likes of J. Huxley and T. Dobzhansky,
which says that biological novelists arose by and large via
gradual/ step-by-step changes. Supplementing gradualism with a
few saltations wouldn't do much harm to the neo-Darwinian
position.
LK Does he think that there is no source of
LK variation that could account for speciation, given natural
LK selection and genetic drift, even after long stretches
LK of time, environmental changes, and separated populations?
I grant that 'speciation' as I've defined it above can occur, has
occurred, and will occur.
LK Again, when Ford starts tackling the tough questions, then
LK I'll start taking him seriously. Until then ...
Loren A. King
David, here's the crux of the matter, as I see it: if two
subpopulations are separated geographically and face very
different and changing environments over very long
stretches of time, what is to stop mutations, genetic
drift, and natural selection from leading to two very
different populations that can no longer interbreed? Over
millions of years, what is to stop these two populations
from developing into very different sorts of creatures?
I take it your response to this question is as follows:
> Neo-darwinists like to allege that certain observations
> (e.g. `speciation', where a `species' is defined as `a
> population of reproductively-isolated organisms') lend
> credence to their view of the powers of neo-Darwinian
> natural selection. I have no quarrel with these
> observations of the biological world, nor does the essay
> attempt to show that such haven't occurred, nor does the
> essay attempt to show that such occurrences can't occur
> in the future.
But then what exactly is your quarrel with a neo-Darwinian
approach to macro-evolution? You don't dispute these
observations, but do you then dispute the plausibility of
the neo-Darwinian model offered to explain them? Explain.
I mean, maybe you're right: there may be some deep
problems with the model, and frankly, it wouldn't surprise
me much if that turned out to be the case. What I don't
see is how your essay makes a clear and constructive case
that there are such problems. What is the point of this
essay that you keep reposting, in more or less the same
form, year after year? How, specifically, does it address
these observations? You voice suspicions that mutations
cannot be the basis for the sort of variation necessary to
drive speciation. But so what?
Let's say that mutations -- combined with separation,
environmental change, natural selection, and genetic drift
-- are insufficient to explain speciation. Now, I for one
readily concede that this may be the case; after all,
there's so much we don't yet understand about genetics,
development, and the dynamics of very complex ecological
systems over time. But surely you cannot think that
mutations, separation, environmental change, NS and GD are
irrelevant to speciation?
Your essay hints at broad ambitions and critical failings
of the neoDarwinian approach; but it seems to me that at
most you are voicing the suspicion that there may be
important factors at work that we don't yet understand.
And hey, sure, yes, who wouldn't agree? But if this is
your point, then I invite you to make a constructive
contribution, rather than a selective literature review:
lay out some ideas about what else might be at work in
speciation, and how these ideas fit in with what we know
(or think we know) about genetics and evolution.
> Anybody that thinks mutations in organisms plus
> organisms' environment can result in the formation of
> new structures that possess new functions engages in
> wishful thinking.
So you assert. What you need to do is make this case in
detail. Why, specifically, is this wishful thinking?
What is missing from the neo-Darwinian account? And to be
clear: it won't do simply to point to the lack of
radically new functional structures after a few decades of
mutations in fruit fly genetics, as you do in your essay.
That hardly counts as decisive evidence against the
explanatory potential of a neo-Darwinian approach to
speciation.
> ... This is the perfect opportunity for someone to come
> along and provide _evidence_ that mutations and
> environment _can_ result in biological structures. ...
Threads along these lines turn up here on talk.origins
quite often, usually under subject-headings such as "are
there any beneficial mutations?" or "can mutations lead to
increased information?" or some such title. In my
experience, these threads often begin with some
interesting and informative contributions (yes, we have
observed some beneficial mutations), but then degenerate
into quibbles over what "function" and "information" mean,
and what sorts of changes count as "new" and "beneficial".
(I gather, though, from your sporadic postings here, that
you are not a regular reader of this newsgroup, or you
would no doubt have been embroiled in some of these
discussions?)
L.
sc...@home.com
>
>David, here's the crux of the matter, as I see it: if two
>subpopulations are separated geographically and face very
>different and changing environments over very long
>stretches of time, what is to stop mutations, genetic
>drift, and natural selection from leading to two very
>different populations that can no longer interbreed?
>
with such.
Here is a quote, taken from the paragraph below.
>> I have no quarrel with these
>> observations of the biological world, nor does the essay
>> attempt to show that such haven't occurred, nor does the
>> essay attempt to show that such occurrences can't occur
>> in the future.
You obviously read this, as you responded to
it below. Why then, do you ask the question
that you asked above? It seem a moot point.
>Over
>millions of years, what is to stop these two populations
>from developing into very different sorts of creatures?
>I take it your response to this question is as follows:
>
>> Neo-darwinists like to allege that certain observations
>> (e.g. `speciation', where a `species' is defined as `a
>> population of reproductively-isolated organisms') lend
>> credence to their view of the powers of neo-Darwinian
>> natural selection. I have no quarrel with these
>> observations of the biological world, nor does the essay
>> attempt to show that such haven't occurred, nor does the
>> essay attempt to show that such occurrences can't occur
>> in the future.
>
>But then what exactly is your quarrel with a neo-Darwinian
>approach to macro-evolution?
>
Again, I would take it that DF has no such quarrel,
as Darwinians define macroevolution as speciation.
Are you using a different definition of macro-evolution?
It would seem so, since you refer to "very different
sorts of creatures." Darwinian macro-evolution and
speciation do not require that populations "develop
into very different sorts of creatures."
>You don't dispute these observations,
>
It would seem clear that he does not.
It's doubtful that he disputes macroevolution either
if it is defined as speciation.
>... but do you then dispute the plausibility of
>the neo-Darwinian model offered to explain them? Explain.
>I mean, maybe you're right: there may be some deep
>problems with the model, and frankly, it wouldn't surprise
>me much if that turned out to be the case. What I don't
>see is how your essay makes a clear and constructive case
>that there are such problems. What is the point of this
>essay that you keep reposting, in more or less the same
>form, year after year? How, specifically, does it address
>these observations? You voice suspicions that mutations
>cannot be the basis for the sort of variation necessary to
>drive speciation. But so what?
>
Perhaps you are talking past one another.
>Let's say that mutations -- combined with separation,
>environmental change, natural selection, and genetic drift
>-- are insufficient to explain speciation. Now, I for one
>readily concede that this may be the case; after all,
>there's so much we don't yet understand about genetics,
>development, and the dynamics of very complex ecological
>systems over time. But surely you cannot think that
>mutations, separation, environmental change, NS and GD are
>irrelevant to speciation?
>
>Your essay hints at broad ambitions and critical failings
>of the neoDarwinian approach; but it seems to me that at
>most you are voicing the suspicion that there may be
>important factors at work that we don't yet understand.
>And hey, sure, yes, who wouldn't agree? But if this is
>your point, then I invite you to make a constructive
>contribution, rather than a selective literature review:
>lay out some ideas about what else might be at work in
>speciation, and how these ideas fit in with what we know
>(or think we know) about genetics and evolution.
>
I don't think DF has any problem with speciation.
See his comments below.
>> Anybody that thinks mutations in organisms plus
>> organisms' environment can result in the formation of
>> new structures that possess new functions engages in
>> wishful thinking.
>
>So you assert.
>
To me, it sounds like he is not talking about
speciation here.
Does speciation require "the formation of new
structures that possess new functions?"
Somehow, I think you two are not on the same
page.
>What you need to do is make this case in
>detail. Why, specifically, is this wishful thinking?
>What is missing from the neo-Darwinian account?
>
Does the neo-Darwinian account attempt to explain
the origin of new structures and functions, or does
it attempt to explain the origin of new species?
Under what name does it place "the formation
of new structures that possess new functions?"
Speciation?
Micro-evolution?
Macro-evolution?
> And to be
>clear: it won't do simply to point to the lack of
>radically new functional structures after a few decades of
>mutations in fruit fly genetics, as you do in your essay.
>That hardly counts as decisive evidence against the
>explanatory potential of a neo-Darwinian approach to
>speciation.
>
He's not talking about speciation, so this is a non-sequitur.
>> ... This is the perfect opportunity for someone to come
>> along and provide _evidence_ that mutations and
>> environment _can_ result in biological structures. ...
>
>Threads along these lines turn up here on talk.origins
>quite often, usually under subject-headings such as "are
>there any beneficial mutations?" or "can mutations lead to
>increased information?" or some such title. In my
>experience, these threads often begin with some
>interesting and informative contributions (yes, we have
>observed some beneficial mutations), but then degenerate
>into quibbles over what "function" and "information" mean,
>and what sorts of changes count as "new" and "beneficial".
>
>(I gather, though, from your sporadic postings here, that
>you are not a regular reader of this newsgroup, or you
>would no doubt have been embroiled in some of these
>discussions?)
>
regards,
Scott
wilkins
> In <39f3c38a$0$57...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>, lk...@mit.edu
> (Loren A. King) writes:
...
> >What you need to do is make this case in
> >detail. Why, specifically, is this wishful thinking?
> >What is missing from the neo-Darwinian account?
> >
> Does the neo-Darwinian account attempt to explain
> the origin of new structures and functions, or does
> it attempt to explain the origin of new species?
>
> Under what name does it place "the formation
> of new structures that possess new functions?"
>
> Speciation?
>
> Micro-evolution?
>
> Macro-evolution?
Scott, we've been through this before. It very much depends on what you
mean by neo-Darwinism. In this context I take it to be the modern
synthetic view of evolution that arose around 1942 and continues to
develop. But here's my take:
Novel structures always occur by modification of pre-existing structures
(even in the case of new appendages, that is the modification of genes,
cells and developmental patterns). In modern theory, this is called
"anagenesis", and means the origin of novel characters by the changing
states of populations over time.
Speciation is the lowest level of macroevolution, and is called
"cladogenesis". Obviously these two kinds of evolution can overlap each
other - anagenetic change (in, for example, the evolution of large body
size, hoof structures or large brains) can occur over several speciation
events, or it can occur within a single species over time.
So the evolution of novelty is neither micro- nor macro-evolution, and
the evolution of species neither requires nor prohibits the evolution of
novelty.
Evolution of Novelty
====================
The evolution of novelty (anagenesis) can occur in several ways. They
are (to my knowledge)
1. Changes in gene frequencies through drift or selection (the latter is
called adaptation)
2. Changes in extrachromosomal inheritance (eg, somatic inheritance)
3. Changes in the environmental range of a species allowing previously
unexpressed development to occur.
Phylogenetic Evolution
======================
Speciation (cladogenesis) can occur in several ways. They are:
1. Geographic isolation followed by the accrual of anagenetic changes in
each separated group (allopatric speciation)
2. Reproductive isolation through
a. Chromosomal changes (karyotypic or stasipatric speciation)
b. Sexual selection
c. Microenvironmental isolation and selection (sympatric speciation)
d. Lowered hybrid fitness (parapatric speciation)
3. Asexual mutation (each novelty is a new lineage)
4. Ploidy - genetic number changes
a. alloploidy - mixing of gametes from two species
b. polyploidy - changing the number of genes in gametes
(variations: allopolyploidy, a mix of both)
So as you can see - there are two distinct process going on in
evolution, and they do not need to march in step.
...
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production, Hall Institute
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
Loren A. King
Scott:
> Loren:
>> David, here's the crux of the matter, as I see it: if two
>> subpopulations are separated geographically and face very
>> different and changing environments over very long
>> stretches of time, what is to stop mutations, genetic
>> drift, and natural selection from leading to two very
>> different populations that can no longer interbreed?
> Nothing. Afiak, ...
^^^^^
There's the problem: go back and read his essay and other
contributions.
> ... DF plainly stated that he had no problem with such.
Yes, he did state that, which makes his reposting of the
"Problems ..." essay that much more curious.
> You obviously read this, as you responded to
> it below. Why then, do you ask the question
> that you asked above? ....
And you obviously haven't read anything else that Ford has
written, in particular, the essay of Ford's in question here.
>> Over millions of years, what is to stop these two
>> populations from developing into very different sorts
>> of creatures? I take it your response to this question
>> is as follows:
>>> Neo-darwinists like to allege that certain observations
>>> (e.g. `speciation', where a `species' is defined as `a
>>> population of reproductively-isolated organisms') lend
>>> credence to their view of the powers of neo-Darwinian
>>> natural selection. I have no quarrel with these
>>> observations of the biological world, nor does the essay
>>> attempt to show that such haven't occurred, nor does the
>>> essay attempt to show that such occurrences can't occur
>>> in the future.
>> But then what exactly is your quarrel with a neo-Darwinian
>> approach to macro-evolution?
> Again, I would take it that DF has no such quarrel,
> as Darwinians define macroevolution as speciation.
Then you haven't read Ford's essay. He now claims that he
has no quarrel with evidence of speciation, but it's clear
he disputes the mechanisms and processes offered by the
neo-Darwinain approach to explain speciation.
> Are you using a different definition of macro-evolution?
> It would seem so, since you refer to "very different
> sorts of creatures." Darwinian macro-evolution and
> speciation do not require that populations "develop into
> very different sorts of creatures."
Who said anything about such change being *required*? The
neo-Darwinian approach doesn't require it, but it doesn't
rule it out either. I think you may be confusing this
thread with another going on, in which a creationist is
requesting evidence that a species could emerge from
another, *entirely* different species. In contrast, the
point here is that there's no good reason on offer
suggesting that gradualism cannot lead to rather dramatic
changes, given long stretches of time and dynamic
environments. This isn't to say that such a reason might
not turn up eventually -- hey sure, maybe. But Ford's
essay does not provide it, nor have any other creationists
to date.
>> ... but do you then dispute the plausibility of the
>> neo-Darwinian model offered to explain them? Explain.
>> I mean, maybe you're right: there may be some deep
>> problems with the model, and frankly, it wouldn't
>> surprise me much if that turned out to be the case.
>> What I don't see is how your essay makes a clear and
>> constructive case that there are such problems. What
>> is the point of this essay that you keep reposting, in
>> more or less the same form, year after year? How,
>> specifically, does it address these observations? You
>> voice suspicions that mutations cannot be the basis for
>> the sort of variation necessary to drive speciation.
>> But so what?
> Perhaps you are talking past one another.
Not in my experience, no. He keeps posting much the same
material, then a few of us here point out some problems
with it, and then he more or less ignores us, takes a
break, then posts the same bloody thing again, with few
(if any) substantive changes. He certainly talks past
some of us who regularly read and comment on his stuff.
>> ... Your essay hints at broad ambitions and critical
>> failings of the neoDarwinian approach; but it seems to
>> me that at most you are voicing the suspicion that
>> there may be important factors at work that we don't
>> yet understand. And hey, sure, yes, who wouldn't
>> agree? But if this is your point, then I invite you to
>> make a constructive contribution, rather than a
>> selective literature review: lay out some ideas about
>> what else might be at work in speciation, and how these
>> ideas fit in with what we know (or think we know) about
>> genetics and evolution.
> I don't think DF has any problem with speciation.
If you read his essay, you'll find that he does indeed
have a problem with any neo-Darwinian account of
speciation. His recent post makes evident that he isn't
at all clear about his specific complaints with natural
selection and neo-Darwinian models.
>>> Anybody that thinks mutations in organisms plus
>>> organisms' environment can result in the formation of
>>> new structures that possess new functions engages in
>>> wishful thinking.
>> So you assert. What you need to do is make this case
>> in detail. Why, specifically, is this wishful
>> thinking? What is missing from the neo-Darwinian
>> account?
> Does the neo-Darwinian account attempt to explain
> the origin of new structures and functions, or does
> it attempt to explain the origin of new species?
Both questions can be addressed within the neo-Darwinian
framework. Whether that framework has yet provided
satisfactory explanations for a range of tough questions
(i.e. about the sources of variation and functional
novelties) is an open and controversial question, but Ford
thinks the framework is deeply flawed, that it cannot
provide such explanations, and that it ought to be
discarded. I see no reason for this. There are a lot of
tough questions left to answer, and new findings may
require modification of the framework, certainly.
Furthermore, some bigger historical questions may just not
admit to satisfactory answers; such is life in the
historical and observational sciences, where experiments
are difficult or impossible, and we take what data we
find, however fleeting and ambiguous. But I just don't
see the fatal flaws that Ford claims are there in the
neo-Darwinian approach.
>>> ... This is the perfect opportunity for someone to come
>>> along and provide _evidence_ that mutations and
>>> environment _can_ result in biological structures. ...
>> Threads along these lines turn up here on talk.origins
>> quite often, usually under subject-headings such as "are
>> there any beneficial mutations?" or "can mutations lead to
>> increased information?" or some such title. In my
>> experience, these threads often begin with some
>> interesting and informative contributions (yes, we have
>> observed some beneficial mutations), but then degenerate
>> into quibbles over what "function" and "information" mean,
>> and what sorts of changes count as "new" and
>> "beneficial".
L.
david ford
david ford:
LK David, here's the crux of the matter, as I see it: if two
LK subpopulations are separated geographically and face very
LK different and changing environments over very long
LK stretches of time, what is to stop mutations, genetic
LK drift, and natural selection from leading to two very
LK different populations that can no longer interbreed? Over
LK millions of years, what is to stop these two populations
LK from developing into very different sorts of creatures?
What qualifies as [LK]"very different"? Does being
reproductively-isolated qualify two organisms as being [LK]"very
different"? Or does your [LK]"very different" involve more than
inability to interbreed, and if so, what?
LK I take it your response to this question is as follows:
df Neo-darwinists like to allege that certain observations
df (e.g. `speciation', where a `species' is defined as `a
df population of reproductively-isolated organisms') lend
df credence to their view of the powers of neo-Darwinian
df natural selection. I have no quarrel with these
df observations of the biological world, nor does the essay
df attempt to show that such haven't occurred, nor does the
df essay attempt to show that such occurrences can't occur
df in the future.
LK But then what exactly is your quarrel with a neo-Darwinian
LK approach to macro-evolution?
I can't answer the above question without knowing what you
consider [LK]"macro-evolution." Are you referring to 'the
arrival of reproductive isolation,' because if so, my reply is "I
have no quarrel."
I think we're interested in two different things. You're
interested in the origin of reproductive isolation, while I'm
interested in the origin of biological novelties.
LK You don't dispute these
LK observations, but do you then dispute the plausibility of
LK the neo-Darwinian model offered to explain them?
If someone says that mutations and the environment account for
the origination of two populations that can't interbreed, I very
likely won't expend any energy disputing that person's claim.
It's just not something I'm particularly interested in.
LK Explain.
LK I mean, maybe you're right: there may be some deep
LK problems with the model, and frankly, it wouldn't surprise
LK me much if that turned out to be the case. What I don't
LK see is how your essay makes a clear and constructive case
LK that there are such problems. What is the point of this
LK essay that you keep reposting, in more or less the same
LK form, year after year?
The record of fossilized organisms doesn't comport with the view
that gradual, tiny incremental-step-by-tiny-step changes in
earth's organisms are responsible for the origin of biological
novelties. Paleontologists have searched and searched for
evidence of the gradualist view of novelties' origin, and yet
have come up empty-handed. If the theory of NS were correct,
there ought be some evidence for it in the fossil record, yet
such hasn't been discovered in over 140 years of searching.
Laboratory experimenters and breeders have failed to uncover any
evidence that mutations can accumulate in a manner such that they
give rise to biological novelties.
LK How, specifically, does it address these observations?
To claim that it's possible for organisms to cease to be able to
interbreed isn't to claim that it's possible for organisms to
develop biological novelties via totally non-intelligence-
directed processes. The whole point of the theory of NS is to
say "intelligence isn't needed to get ears and eyes and tigers
and moths," not "intelligence isn't needed to get a finch that,
because of a large difference in size, can't interbreed with
other finches."
LK You voice suspicions that mutations
LK cannot be the basis for the sort of variation necessary to
LK drive speciation.
Not so: I don't care a whit whether or not mutations can or
can't be a basis for the arrival of reproductive isolation.
LK But so what?
LK
LK Let's say that mutations -- combined with separation,
LK environmental change, natural selection, and genetic drift
LK -- are insufficient to explain speciation. Now, I for one
LK readily concede that this may be the case; after all,
LK there's so much we don't yet understand about genetics,
LK development, and the dynamics of very complex ecological
LK systems over time. But surely you cannot think that
LK mutations, separation, environmental change, NS and GD are
LK irrelevant to speciation?
LK
LK Your essay hints at broad ambitions and critical failings
LK of the neoDarwinian approach; but it seems to me that at
LK most you are voicing the suspicion that there may be
LK important factors at work that we don't yet understand.
LK And hey, sure, yes, who wouldn't agree? But if this is
LK your point, then I invite you to make a constructive
LK contribution, rather than a selective literature review:
LK lay out some ideas about what else might be at work in
LK speciation, and how these ideas fit in with what we know
LK (or think we know) about genetics and evolution.
df Anybody that thinks mutations in organisms plus
df organisms' environment can result in the formation of
df new structures that possess new functions engages in
df wishful thinking.
LK So you assert. What you need to do is make this case in
LK detail. Why, specifically, is this wishful thinking?
Because there's no evidence discovered for it; should you
disagree, please present some of the supporting evidence that's
been discovered.
LK What is missing from the neo-Darwinian account?
A lack of correspondence with what's observed by paleontologists
and breeders.
LK And to be
LK clear: it won't do simply to point to the lack of
LK radically new functional structures after a few decades of
LK mutations in fruit fly genetics, as you do in your essay.
Perhaps you're thinking of a different essay, because mine
largely consisted of a review of paleontologists' findings.
LK That hardly counts as decisive evidence against the
LK explanatory potential of a neo-Darwinian approach to
LK speciation.
df ... This is the perfect opportunity for someone to come
df along and provide _evidence_ that mutations and
df environment _can_ result in biological structures. ...
LK Threads along these lines turn up here on talk.origins
LK quite often, usually under subject-headings such as "are
LK there any beneficial mutations?" or "can mutations lead to
LK increased information?" or some such title. In my
LK experience, these threads often begin with some
LK interesting and informative contributions (yes, we have
LK observed some beneficial mutations), but then degenerate
LK into quibbles over what "function" and "information" mean,
LK and what sorts of changes count as "new" and "beneficial".
So you decline to take up the opportunity provided. Perhaps
another time. Perhaps another person will.
LK (I gather, though, from your sporadic postings here, that
LK you are not a regular reader of this newsgroup, or you
LK would no doubt have been embroiled in some of these
LK discussions?)
During the course of the past few years, I've read at various
intervals various portions of a small fraction of the posts
posted to talk.origins, and have replied to an even smaller
fraction of posts.
Loren A. King
David Ford:
> To claim that it's possible for organisms to cease to be
> able to interbreed isn't to claim that it's possible for
> organisms to develop biological novelties via totally
> non-intelligence- directed processes.
I don't think the distinction is as clear as you hope.
How do you define "functional novelty"? Suppose that a
speciation occurs as neo-Darwinian gradualism expects, for
instance, through separation and environmental changes
over a long stretch of time. Now suppose that, over the
course of this protracted process, some traits that were
not selected against now become advantageous to their
bearers. Suppose further that these traits change in
certain ways as selection pressures come to bear, and that
they come to serve a specific function along with other
traits, a function that none of these traits served
before. Would this be the emergence of functional novelty
through natural selection? If so, do you really think the
question of speciation is entirely distinct from the
question of how at least some functional novelties emerge?
And do you really think the fossil evidence is radically
at odds with these sorts of conjectures about the gradual
emergence of new traits and functions?
>>> ... This is the perfect opportunity for someone to
>>> come along and provide _evidence_ that mutations and
>>> environment _can_ result in biological structures. ...
>> Threads along these lines turn up here on talk.origins
>> quite often, usually under subject-headings such as
>> "are there any beneficial mutations?" or "can mutations
>> lead to increased information?" or some such title. In
>> my experience, these threads often begin with some
>> interesting and informative contributions (yes, we have
>> observed some beneficial mutations), but then
>> degenerate into quibbles over what "function" and
>> "information" mean, and what sorts of changes count as
>> "new" and "beneficial".
> So you decline to take up the opportunity provided.
I do indeed -- as I said, it's been a fairly well-argued
topic here. And no doubt you know this if you are even a
sporadic reader of talk.origins (you are certainly a
sporadic poster, so I'm assuming you also do some reading
-- indeed, at the end of your most recent post you suggest
as much). So, I'm assuming that you have added the quip
above in an attempt to score debating points. Whatever.
If you're seriously interested in what's been said here on
these matters, check out deja.com for the threads in
question; some of the more recent ones were fairly
interesting, I recall.
> Perhaps another time. Perhaps another person will.
Quit the posturing, David: several people here have
already talked about this, on several occasions. If I
remember correctly, some of them have even (gasp!)
presented some modest evidence regarding to beneficial
mutations. Now I am certainly not suggesting that these
threads provide any definite and uncontroversial answers
to the sort of tough questions you raise (i.e. questions
about the origins of variation and functional novelties).
But to hint, as you do, that people have been silent on
the topic is to willfully distort the truth of the matter.
L.
sc...@home.com
><sc...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> In <39f3c38a$0$57...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>, lk...@mit.edu
>> (Loren A. King) writes:
>
David Ford to Loren King:
"I think we're interested in two different things.
You're interested in the origin of reproductive
isolation, while I'm interested in the origin of
biological novelties."
Like I said, I think they were talking past one
another. DF wants to discuss one thing, the
origin of biological novelties, and LK keeps
bringing up speciation, which just confuses
the issue.
You wrote:
"So the evolution of novelty is neither micro- nor macro-evolution, and
the evolution of species neither requires nor prohibits the evolution of
novelty."
This was my take on the issue, and I do not disagree
with you in the slightest. My questions were asked to
clarify the debate between LK and DF.
Best regards,
Scott
david ford
david ford:
df To claim that it's possible for organisms to cease to be
df able to interbreed isn't to claim that it's possible for
df organisms to develop biological novelties via totally
df non-intelligence-directed processes.
LK I don't think the distinction is as clear as you hope.
LK How do you define "functional novelty"?
I haven't used the phrase. You just did. And I don't know what
you mean by it.
LK Suppose that a
LK speciation occurs as neo-Darwinian gradualism expects, for
LK instance, through separation and environmental changes
LK over a long stretch of time. Now suppose that, over the
LK course of this protracted process, some traits that were
LK not selected against now become advantageous to their
LK bearers. Suppose further that these traits change in
LK certain ways as selection pressures come to bear, and that
LK they come to serve a specific function along with other
LK traits, a function that none of these traits served
LK before.
What are some concrete examples of [LK]"traits"? What's a
hypothetical example of [LK]"traits change[d] in certain ways...
and that... come to serve a specific function along with other
traits, a function that none of these traits served before"?
LK Would this be the emergence of functional novelty
LK through natural selection?
I don't know what you're talking about.
LK If so, do you really think the
LK question of speciation is entirely distinct from the
LK question of how at least some functional novelties emerge?
I take it that you're asking me to agree with you that the
question of reproductive isolation arising is somehow related to
the question of how some [LK]"functional novelties" (whatever
those are) arise. Since your remarks supposed at the outset that
1) we had reproductive isolation arising, and 2) during the
course of this reproductive isolation arising, [LK]"functional
novelties" arose, I'll agree with you, and say yes, they're
related, since in your scenario they both are had occurring at
the same time.
LK And do you really think the fossil evidence is radically
LK at odds with these sorts of conjectures about the gradual
LK emergence of new traits and functions?
Not having a good grasp of your traits conjectures and use of
[LK]"functional novelty," I can't answer this.
>df ... This is the perfect opportunity for someone to
>df come along and provide _evidence_ that mutations and
>df environment _can_ result in biological structures. ...
>LK Threads along these lines turn up here on talk.origins
>LK quite often, usually under subject-headings such as
>LK "are there any beneficial mutations?" or "can mutations
>LK lead to increased information?" or some such title. In
>LK my experience, these threads often begin with some
>LK interesting and informative contributions (yes, we have
>LK observed some beneficial mutations), but then
>LK degenerate into quibbles over what "function" and
>LK "information" mean, and what sorts of changes count as
>LK "new" and "beneficial".
df So you decline to take up the opportunity provided.
LK I do indeed -- as I said, it's been a fairly well-argued
LK topic here.
Fairly-well argued by you? Or by others that are much more
knowledgeable about the topic? (If the latter, that
would help explain your hesitancy to discuss the matter now.)
LK And no doubt you know this if you are even a
LK sporadic reader of talk.origins (you are certainly a
LK sporadic poster, so I'm assuming you also do some reading
LK -- indeed, at the end of your most recent post you suggest
LK as much).
Oh, no, I don't do any reading.
LK So, I'm assuming that you have added the quip
LK above in an attempt to score debating points. Whatever.
LK If you're seriously interested in what's been said here on
LK these matters, check out deja.com for the threads in
LK question; some of the more recent ones were fairly
LK interesting, I recall.
df Perhaps another time. Perhaps another person will.
LK Quit the posturing, David: several people here have
LK already talked about this, on several occasions. If I
LK remember correctly, some of them have even (gasp!)
LK presented some modest evidence regarding to beneficial
LK mutations.
I readily agree that there are (a very few) beneficial mutations.
However, the number of harmful plus neutral mutations far, far
exceeds the number of beneficial mutations. In addition, the
very few beneficial mutations that have been discovered almost
entirely remain _single_ beneficial mutations, yet neo-Darwinism
postulates an _accumulation and harmonious coordination_ of
enormous numbers of beneficial mutations.
LK Now I am certainly not suggesting that these
LK threads provide any definite and uncontroversial answers
LK to the sort of tough questions you raise (i.e. questions
LK about the origins of variation and functional novelties).
What questions? You snipped them, so they must not exist. A
snipped question is an unasked question.
LK But to hint, as you do, that people have been silent on
LK the topic is to willfully distort the truth of the matter.
What topic are you referring to? The topic of how biological
novelties arise? I'm certainly not silent on the topic of the
origin of biological novelties. It's the neo-Darwinists who
prefer to talk instead of moth wing-color ratios changing, and
minor variations in finch beaks.
thewilkins
OK, that is true, but the implication in your "Does the neo-Darwinian
account attempt to explain the origin of new structures and functions,
or does it attempt to explain the origin of new species?" is a false
dichotomy. Since common descent and descent with modification (equals
cladogenesis and anagenesis) are the original Darwinian hypotheses, and
neo-Darwinism of all kinds incorporates both views, the answer is "yes,
neo-Darwinism explains both".
--
John Wilkins at home
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
sc...@home.com
>
<snip>
>OK, that is true, but the implication in your "Does the neo-Darwinian
>account attempt to explain the origin of new structures and functions,
>or does it attempt to explain the origin of new species?" is a false
>dichotomy. Since common descent and descent with modification (equals
>cladogenesis and anagenesis) are the original Darwinian hypotheses, and
>neo-Darwinism of all kinds incorporates both views, the answer is "yes,
>neo-Darwinism explains both".
>
Ok, I understand you.
Yes, that would be a false dichotomy.
Do you know any good books that deal with
the subject of convergence?
An amazon search on convergence both as
a title and as a subject turned up nothing.
Does convergence go by any different term?
Do you know any good books that deal with
the subject of anagenesis?
An amazon search on anagenesis both as
a title and as a subject turned up nothing.
Does anagenesis go by any different term?
regards,
Scott
John Harshman
> In <1ej7wxq.st53qsd5qy0sN%thewi...@bigpond.com>,
thewi...@bigpond.com (thewilkins) writes:
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >OK, that is true, but the implication in your "Does the neo-Darwinian
> >account attempt to explain the origin of new structures and functions,
> >or does it attempt to explain the origin of new species?" is a false
> >dichotomy. Since common descent and descent with modification (equals
> >cladogenesis and anagenesis) are the original Darwinian hypotheses, and
> >neo-Darwinism of all kinds incorporates both views, the answer is "yes,
> >neo-Darwinism explains both".
> >
> Ok, I understand you.
>
> Yes, that would be a false dichotomy.
>
> Do you know any good books that deal with
> the subject of convergence?
>
> An amazon search on convergence both as
> a title and as a subject turned up nothing.
>
> Does convergence go by any different term?
Homoplasy. Search for a book with that title, and you will find it. But
you would be better advised to read a textbook on evolution, and I suggest
Ridley's.
> Do you know any good books that deal with
> the subject of anagenesis?
Not per se. But anagenesis is simply evolutionary change within
populations, and there are hundreds of books and papers dealing with that.
> An amazon search on anagenesis both as
> a title and as a subject turned up nothing.
>
> Does anagenesis go by any different term?
Evolution, or evolutionary change. Sure, it's only part of evolution, but
that's the word generally used when referring to anagenesis, except when
someone is specifically trying to distinguish anagenesis from evolutionary
change coincident with cladogenesis.
--
*Note the obvious spam-defeating modification
to my address if you reply by email.
Loren A. King
David Ford:
> Loren King:
>df To claim that it's possible for organisms to cease to be
>df able to interbreed isn't to claim that it's possible for
>df organisms to develop biological novelties via totally
>df non-intelligence-directed processes.
>LK I don't think the distinction is as clear as you hope.
>LK How do you define "functional novelty"?
>df I haven't used the phrase. You just did. And I don't
>df know what you mean by it.
Okay, how about the phrase you do use: "biological
novelties" -- what do you mean by this? Frankly, as near
as I can figure, you really want to argue against the
possibility that "non-intelligence-directed processes" can
lead to novel features that serve some specific function.
After all, you seem to concede that mutations can lead to
some changes, even beneficial changes, and these certainly
fall under your category of "biological novelty". I mean,
any mutation that results in some new trait (however tiny
and insignificant) that isn't selected against would
surely count as a "biological novelty". but presumably
you have something more in mind, no?
>LK Suppose that a speciation occurs as neo-Darwinian gradualism
>LK expects, for instance, through separation and environmental
>LK changes over a long stretch of time. Now suppose that, over
>LK the course of this protracted process, some traits that were
>LK not selected against now become advantageous to their
>LK bearers. Suppose further that these traits change in
>LK certain ways as selection pressures come to bear, and that
>LK they come to serve a specific function along with other
>LK traits, a function that none of these traits served
>LK before.
>df What are some concrete examples of "traits"?
Limbs, digits, specific organs, parts of specific organs,
specific biochemical processes that go on within a set of
organs, etc. I'm thinking of the genotype/phenotype
distinction here.
>df What's a hypothetical example of `traits changed
>df in certain ways that come to serve a specific
>df function along with other traits, a function that
>df none of these traits served before'?
Oh I dunno -- maybe some mutation that creates a measure
of photosensitivity in a patch of skin? A mutation in
some part of the genome (say a part that regulates a set
of developmental processes associated with that part of
the organism's skin) might make a range of other mutations
more likely in that part of the genome. These mutations
might be expressed as varying degrees of photosensitivity.
To the degree that sets of mutations in this area lead to
a functional trait that makes the bearers better able to
discern certain features of their environment (in ways
that non-bearers are unable to do), bearers would have a
reproductive advantage. This is completely off the cuff
-- this isn't my area of work at all, and I'm too busy
this weekend to actually look up some more precise
conjectures about redundancy and irreversibility in
evolution. But I think this vague story gets the idea
across.
>df ... This is the perfect opportunity for someone to
>df come along and provide _evidence_ that mutations and
>df environment _can_ result in biological structures. ...
>LK Threads along these lines turn up here on talk.origins
>LK quite often, usually under subject-headings such as
>LK "are there any beneficial mutations?" or "can mutations
>LK lead to increased information?" or some such title. In
>LK my experience, these threads often begin with some
>LK interesting and informative contributions (yes, we have
>LK observed some beneficial mutations), but then
>LK degenerate into quibbles over what "function" and
>LK "information" mean, and what sorts of changes count as
>LK "new" and "beneficial".
>df So you decline to take up the opportunity provided.
>LK I do indeed -- as I said, it's been a fairly well-argued
>LK topic here.
>df Fairly-well argued by you?
No, by others who know far more about these matters than
I. But then, that should be clear from what I said, or at
the very least from a casual perusal of the threads in
question (in which I have generally not participated).
This is more posturing on your part.
>LK But to hint, as you do, that people have been silent on
>LK the topic is to willfully distort the truth of the matter.
>df What topic are you referring to? The topic of how
>df biological novelties arise? I'm certainly not silent on
>df the topic of the origin of biological novelties. ...
Yes you are. You've offered no specific, constructive
conjectures or evidence on this question. Nor have you
been at all clear on just what your complaint is. Your
original essay seemed to argue that mutations and natural
selection were unable to account for the origin of species
(Darwin's original problem). Now it's clear that
speciation isn't really your focus, but this amorphous
category of "biological novelties." Presumably by this
you mean more than any old change, however insignificant
to reproductive success. But when I've tryied to hone it
down here to functional novelties that have some
reproductive advantage, you insist you have no idea what I
might be talking about.
Maybe you should write another essay, this time trying to
be very clear on what, precisely, your complaint with the
neo-Darwinian approach is? It might help to be clear at
the outset of what the neo-Darwinian approach is, what it
tries to explain, and what features of the natural world
you think it is unable to explain, and why. It certainly
wouldn't hurt to offer some constructive speculations on
what a better explanation might be of the phenomena you
are concerned with, and how the evidence supports this
alternative strategy of explanation.
L.
John Segerson
"Loren A. King" wrote:
>
> David Ford:
> > Loren King:
[snip]
> >df What are some concrete examples of "traits"?
>
> Limbs, digits, specific organs, parts of specific organs,
> specific biochemical processes that go on within a set of
> organs, etc. I'm thinking of the genotype/phenotype
> distinction here.
>
> >df What's a hypothetical example of `traits changed
> >df in certain ways that come to serve a specific
> >df function along with other traits, a function that
> >df none of these traits served before'?
>
> Oh I dunno -- maybe some mutation that creates a measure
> of photosensitivity in a patch of skin?
Or resistance to antibiotics (a robust, well
documented example of mutation resulting in a
beneficial function (call it a "trait" or
"structure," if you like), and differential
reproductive success.
Watch out Dave! Do a search on "Harp" if you
want a taste of what a challenge argument
with Mr. King would be like.
[snip]
J
sc...@home.com
>In article <39fb3...@news1.prserv.net>, sc...@home.com wrote:
>
>> In <1ej7wxq.st53qsd5qy0sN%thewi...@bigpond.com>,
>thewi...@bigpond.com (thewilkins) writes:
>> >
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >OK, that is true, but the implication in your "Does the neo-Darwinian
>> >account attempt to explain the origin of new structures and functions,
>> >or does it attempt to explain the origin of new species?" is a false
>> >dichotomy. Since common descent and descent with modification (equals
>> >cladogenesis and anagenesis) are the original Darwinian hypotheses, and
>> >neo-Darwinism of all kinds incorporates both views, the answer is "yes,
>> >neo-Darwinism explains both".
>> >
>> Ok, I understand you.
>>
>> Yes, that would be a false dichotomy.
>>
>> Do you know any good books that deal with
>> the subject of convergence?
>>
>> An amazon search on convergence both as
>> a title and as a subject turned up nothing.
>>
>> Does convergence go by any different term?
>
>Homoplasy. Search for a book with that title, and you will find it. But
>you would be better advised to read a textbook on evolution, and I suggest
>Ridley's.
>
Is this the one titled plainly _Evolution_?
Thank you.
<snip>
Scott
Loren A. King
> Watch out Dave! Do a search on "Harp" if you
> want a taste of what a challenge argument
> with Mr. King would be like.
Yes, what a time-sink that exchange was. My ... urm,
enthusiasm in that dispute with Mark Harpt was
overwhelmingly driven by his desire to score petty
debating points rather than defend his arguments in any
sincere and detailed way. David does seem to do some
reading and think about certain issues with a reasonable
amount of care. I just don't think he extends that
reading and careful attention far enough beyond his
favored conjectures. Also, Harpt's claims had a
significant logical/philosophical component that I felt I
could discuss with a modest degree of confidence. David
is here asking me to speculate on matters about which I
have no expertise whatsoever. I don't mind discussing
David's writing with him, but I'm not going to enter into
an area that where I have nothing even remotely useful to
contribute.
L.
John Segerson
My apology to both you and David. I too have a
high opinion of his posts. I'm sorry I brought my
own frustrations (having a bad day) to the group.
Hat in hand
John
wilkins
<sc...@home.com> wrote:
See
Sanderson, Michael J., and Larry Hufford. 1996. Homoplasy: the
recurrence of similarity in evolution. San Diego: Academic Press.
> >
> Mark Ridley?
>
> Is this the one titled plainly _Evolution_?
You might also see this:
Ridley, Mark. 1986. Evolution and classification: the reformation of
cladism. London; New York: Longman.
This discusses the issues involved in reconstructing cladogenesis
through the use of cladistic techniques.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> <snip>
>
> Scott
david ford
david ford:
>df To claim that it's possible for organisms to cease to be
>df able to interbreed isn't to claim that it's possible for
>df organisms to develop biological novelties via totally
>df non-intelligence-directed processes.
>LK I don't think the distinction is as clear as you hope.
>LK How do you define "functional novelty"?
>df I haven't used the phrase. You just did. And I don't
>df know what you mean by it.
LK Okay, how about the phrase you do use: "biological
LK novelties" -- what do you mean by this?
I prefer to avoid using the word "evolution" as much as possible
because it has many different definitions that
blindwatchmakingists frequently equivocate on. As can be seen in
the essay, my "biological novelties" is basically equivalent to
Mayr's "evolutionary novelties."
LK Frankly, as near
LK as I can figure, you really want to argue against the
LK possibility that "non-intelligence-directed processes" can
LK lead to novel features that serve some specific function.
The best proposed biological-novelties-generating mechanism the
blindwatchmakingists possess is the neo-Darwinian mechanism.
I've spent some time arguing against the plausibility of that
mechanism. I don't know how to argue against the feasibility of
any to-be-discovered blindwatchmaking mechanisms, other than to
point out that no evidence has been produced for this (these)
hypothetical successor(s) to the neo-Darwinian mechanism.
LK After all, you seem to concede that mutations can lead to
LK some changes, even beneficial changes, and these certainly
LK fall under your category of "biological novelty".
[LK]"and these certainly fall under your category of 'biological
novelty'" Certainly? I don't understand how you can say
[LK]"certainly" when you just asked me above what I meant by the
phrase "biological novelties."
LK I mean,
LK any mutation that results in some new trait (however tiny
LK and insignificant) that isn't selected against would
LK surely count as a "biological novelty". but presumably
LK you have something more in mind, no?
>LK Suppose that a speciation occurs as neo-Darwinian gradualism
>LK expects, for instance, through separation and environmental
>LK changes over a long stretch of time. Now suppose that, over
>LK the course of this protracted process, some traits that were
>LK not selected against now become advantageous to their
>LK bearers. Suppose further that these traits change in
>LK certain ways as selection pressures come to bear, and that
>LK they come to serve a specific function along with other
>LK traits, a function that none of these traits served
>LK before.
>df What are some concrete examples of "traits"?
LK Limbs, digits, specific organs, parts of specific organs,
LK specific biochemical processes that go on within a set of
LK organs, etc. I'm thinking of the genotype/phenotype
LK distinction here.
>df What's a hypothetical example of `traits changed
>df in certain ways that come to serve a specific
>df function along with other traits, a function that
>df none of these traits served before'?
LK Oh I dunno -- maybe some mutation that creates a measure
LK of photosensitivity in a patch of skin? A mutation in
LK some part of the genome (say a part that regulates a set
LK of developmental processes associated with that part of
LK the organism's skin) might make a range of other mutations
LK more likely in that part of the genome. These mutations
LK might be expressed as varying degrees of photosensitivity.
LK To the degree that sets of mutations in this area lead to
LK a functional trait that makes the bearers better able to
LK discern certain features of their environment (in ways
LK that non-bearers are unable to do), bearers would have a
LK reproductive advantage. This is completely off the cuff
LK -- this isn't my area of work at all, and I'm too busy
LK this weekend to actually look up some more precise
LK conjectures about redundancy and irreversibility in
LK evolution. But I think this vague story gets the idea
LK across.
>df ... This is the perfect opportunity for someone to
>df come along and provide _evidence_ that mutations and
>df environment _can_ result in biological structures. ...
>LK Threads along these lines turn up here on talk.origins
>LK quite often, usually under subject-headings such as
>LK "are there any beneficial mutations?" or "can mutations
>LK lead to increased information?" or some such title. In
>LK my experience, these threads often begin with some
>LK interesting and informative contributions (yes, we have
>LK observed some beneficial mutations), but then
>LK degenerate into quibbles over what "function" and
>LK "information" mean, and what sorts of changes count as
>LK "new" and "beneficial".
>df So you decline to take up the opportunity provided.
>LK I do indeed -- as I said, it's been a fairly well-argued
>LK topic here.
>df Fairly-well argued by you?
LK No, by others who know far more about these matters than
LK I. But then, that should be clear from what I said, or at
LK the very least from a casual perusal of the threads in
LK question (in which I have generally not participated).
LK This is more posturing on your part.
[LK]"or at the very least from a casual perusal of the threads in
question" Your vague references to these threads haven't
prompted me to undertake a casual perusal of them.
[LK]"No, by others who know far more about these matters than I.
But then, that should be clear from what I said" From what you
said right now, it's very clear. And I and possibly some
onlookers would not have received that clarity had I not asked
and you not answered my question.
In any event, my request is still out there for someone to
present some _evidence_ that not-intelligence-directed
alterations in organisms' genomes, in combination with organisms'
surroundings changing, can result in the formation of new
structures that possess new functions. Do I have any takers? If
I don't have any takers, is that because the people that know the
evidence aren't reading and responding? If I don't have any
takers, is that because the requested evidence isn't known to
exist? Perhaps I'll be told to check back in 500 years, for
"surely" the evidence requested will have by then been
discovered.
>LK But to hint, as you do, that people have been silent on
>LK the topic is to willfully distort the truth of the matter.
>df What topic are you referring to? The topic of how
>df biological novelties arise? I'm certainly not silent on
>df the topic of the origin of biological novelties. ...
LK Yes you are. You've offered no specific, constructive
LK conjectures or evidence on this question.
How would you, who just now asked what I meant by "biological
novelties," know?
LK Nor have you
LK been at all clear on just what your complaint is.
If that's your opinion, I suggest you reread the essay, or read
it-- whichever is applicable. You might also consider reading my
reply to your 23 Oct 00 question [LK]"What is the point of this
essay that you keep reposting, in more or less the same form,
year after year?" Do you generally read what you snip?
LK Your
LK original essay seemed to argue that mutations and natural
LK selection were unable to account for the origin of species
LK (Darwin's original problem).
No, my original essay focused on biological novelties, just as
does the revised version. (The revision consisted almost
entirely in adding quotes to roughly the middle.)
[LK]"account for the origin of species" Incidentally, "species"
is another word I prefer to avoid.
LK Now it's clear that
LK speciation isn't really your focus, but this amorphous
LK category of "biological novelties." Presumably by this
LK you mean more than any old change, however insignificant
LK to reproductive success.
Presumably? I suggest you re-read (or read) the first quarter of
the essay.
LK But when I've tried to hone it
LK down here to functional novelties that have some
LK reproductive advantage, you insist you have no idea what I
LK might be talking about.
The introduction of the incredibly vague [LK]"some reproductive
advantage" is hardly an improvement to any concept.
LK Maybe you should write another essay, this time trying to
LK be very clear on what, precisely, your complaint with the
LK neo-Darwinian approach is?
Maybe you should read the essay.
LK It might help to be clear at
LK the outset of what the neo-Darwinian approach is, what it
LK tries to explain, and what features of the natural world
LK you think it is unable to explain, and why.
I think the essay does that, and think you should read it
before we continue our discussion. It's at
<http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=629441259>.
LK It certainly
LK wouldn't hurt to offer some constructive speculations on
LK what a better explanation might be of the phenomena you
LK are concerned with, and how the evidence supports this
LK alternative strategy of explanation.
sc...@home.com
Scott
Loren A. King
David Ford:
> Loren King:
>> david ford:
>>df To claim that it's possible for organisms to cease to be
>>df able to interbreed isn't to claim that it's possible for
>>df organisms to develop biological novelties via totally
>>df non-intelligence-directed processes.
>>LK I don't think the distinction is as clear as you hope.
>>LK How do you define "functional novelty"?
>>df I haven't used the phrase. You just did. And I don't
>>df know what you mean by it.
>LK Okay, how about the phrase you do use: "biological
>LK novelties" -- what do you mean by this?
> I prefer to avoid using the word "evolution" as much as possible
> because it has many different definitions that
> blindwatchmakingists frequently equivocate on. As can be seen in
> the essay, my "biological novelties" is basically equivalent to
> Mayr's "evolutionary novelties."
So, just to be clear, by "biological novelties" you mean
"entirely new organs, new structures, new physiological
capacities, and new behavior patterns" (Mayr, Growth of
Biological Thought, p. 610).
And you no doubt know that Mayr's central point is that
such incipient features can be plausibly explained in
Darwinian terms by identifying functional novelty:
"a change in function of a structure is the key element
in the solution of this problem ... during such a shift
of function a strcutre always passes through a stage
when it can simultaneously perform two functions, like
the antenna of a Daphnia which is a sense organ as well
as a swimming paddle. This duality of function is made
possible because the genotype is a highly complex system
which always produces certain aspects of the phenotype
that had not been directly selected for but are simply
`by-products' of the selected genotype. Such
by-products are then available as the machinery for new
functions" (Mayr, 610-11).
What factors might lead to formerly neutral features
becoming part of a new function, or serving a new function
themselves? Well, as I've been suggesting, the same
processes that lead to speciation (separation, different
and changing environments, long periods of time) are also
likely to select for new functions. Or do you dispute this?
>>LK But to hint, as you do, that people have been silent on
>>LK the topic is to willfully distort the truth of the matter.
>>df What topic are you referring to? The topic of how
>>df biological novelties arise? I'm certainly not silent on
>>df the topic of the origin of biological novelties. ...
>LK Yes you are. You've offered no specific, constructive
>LK conjectures or evidence on this question.
> How would you, who just now asked what I meant by
> "biological novelties," know?
I don't understand what this has to do with my point -- or
is this more posturing? Are you suggesting that, because
I asked you to clarify a phrase (that has an obvious and
trivial sense that you clearly don't mean), I must not
know much about this stuff? Do you really believe that
you are arguing here with someone who hasn't done at least
as much reading in these areas as you?
I hope you aren't claiming that you have in fact offered
specific, constructive conjectures and evidence that are
more plausible explanations than those offered by the
neo-Darwinian approach? I must have missed these detailed
posts.
Is it your sense that your original essay and subsequent
comments amount to a precise and well-researched critique
of the neo-Darwinian approach to explaining "biological
novelties" (by which, again, you really mean something
more like functional novelty, in accord with Mayr's
discussion of evolutionary novelties). Now you insist
that the origin of species was never your concern, only
"biological novelties," and you act as if those two
problems are radically distinct, and easily separated
(they certainly were not for Darwin, nor for Mayr and
Severtsov, and contemporary researchers).
Oh, and your stated intention to ignore a range of other
threads here, on topics that are directly relevant to your
concerns: that may sound to you like a high-minded
dismissal of my vague reference, but it looks to me (and
probably others) more like you sticking your head in the
sand. If you seriously are interested in this stuff, why
would you ignore a bunch of threads in which smart and
knowlegeable people contribute information and opinions?
This seems bizarre to me.
L.
Loren A. King
David, I noticed you didn't have anything to say about the
following points -- were you satisfied with my answers?
If so, perhaps you could say a few words (especially in
light of your recent mention of Mayr) about why the
conjecture I offer below is so unlikely to be found in
nature, and why it relies on a poor model for the
evolution of functional novelties?
wf...@ptd.net
.. I don't know how to argue against the feasibility of
>any to-be-discovered blindwatchmaking mechanisms, other than to
>point out that no evidence has been produced for this (these)
>hypothetical successor(s) to the neo-Darwinian mechanism.
>
>
>In any event, my request is still out there for someone to
>present some _evidence_ that not-intelligence-directed
>alterations in organisms' genomes, in combination with organisms'
>surroundings changing, can result in the formation of new
>structures that possess new functions. Do I have any takers? If
>I don't have any takers, is that because the people that know the
>evidence aren't reading and responding? If I don't have any
>takers, is that because the requested evidence isn't known to
>exist? Perhaps I'll be told to check back in 500 years, for
>"surely" the evidence requested will have by then been
>discovered.
now lets see....dave doesnt like evolution because there's no evidence
for 'blindwatchmaking' mechanisms....
he does, however, like creationism even though there are no mechanisms
for 'intelligence directed' creation....
can we say OXYMORON boys and girls??
WickedDyno
Well, if there are no mechanisms, there can't be no evidence for them...
or sumpthin'...
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
david ford
david ford:
df I don't know how to argue against the feasibility of
df any to-be-discovered blindwatchmaking mechanisms, other than to
df point out that no evidence has been produced for this (these)
df hypothetical successor(s) to the neo-Darwinian mechanism.
df
df In any event, my request is still out there for someone to
df present some _evidence_ that not-intelligence-directed
df alterations in organisms' genomes, in combination with organisms'
df surroundings changing, can result in the formation of new
df structures that possess new functions. Do I have any takers? If
df I don't have any takers, is that because the people that know the
df evidence aren't reading and responding? If I don't have any
df takers, is that because the requested evidence isn't known to
df exist? Perhaps I'll be told to check back in 500 years, for
df "surely" the evidence requested will have by then been
df discovered.
b now lets see....dave doesnt like evolution because
b there's no evidence for 'blindwatchmaking' mechanisms....
b
b he does, however, like creationism even though there
b are no mechanisms for 'intelligence directed' creation....
b
b can we say OXYMORON boys and girls??
[b]"there are no mechanisms for 'intelligence directed' creation"
As I look around, I see a stereo, lightbulb, and desk. The
stereo, lightbulb, and desk arose via the operation of multiple
intelligences. Intelligence was responsible for the stereo's,
lightbulb's, and desk's beginning-to-exist. In short, there
_are_ [b]"mechanisms for 'intelligence directed' creation."
david ford
david ford:
>LK Okay, how about the phrase you do use: "biological
>LK novelties" -- what do you mean by this?
df I prefer to avoid using the word "evolution" as much as possible
df because it has many different definitions that
df blindwatchmakingists frequently equivocate on. As can be seen in
df the essay, my "biological novelties" is basically equivalent to
df Mayr's "evolutionary novelties."
LK So, just to be clear, by "biological novelties" you mean
LK "entirely new organs, new structures, new physiological
LK capacities, and new behavior patterns" (Mayr, Growth of
LK Biological Thought, p. 610).
Basically, but I'm not too sure about the meaning of
[Mayr]"entirely... new behavior patterns" If I teach a dog to
fetch a newspaper every morning, have I taught it an
[Mayr]"entirely... new behavior patter[n]"? There's no change in
phenotype there. To quote Mayr,
Such macroevolutionary phenomena as preadaptation, change of
function, and the origin of evolutionary novelties or of
higher taxa must be studied through a comparison of
phenotypes.[Mayr, _Toward a New Philosophy of Biology_,
402.]
===============begin inserted text===============
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 00:34:55 -0400
From: david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
Subject: Re: Enormous Gaps Yawn Through the Fossil Record
Title: Problems with the Theory of Natural Selection
Keywords: natural selection, evolutionary novelties, imperfection
in fossil record, Gould and Eldredge, artificial vs. natural
selection
Author: David Ford <dfo...@GL.umbc.edu>, an undergraduate at the
University of Maryland Baltimore County majoring in history
and philosophy.
Date: 13 May 1998 File: attack.75
Words, including notes and bibliography: about 5000
Currently curator of the Department of Invertebrates at the
American Museum of Natural History, paleontologist Niles Eldredge
recounts the story of how he set out to do his Ph.D. thesis with
the aim of finding in successive fossilized remains the gradual
appearance of what I will term an "evolutionary novelty." For
purposes of this essay, and using Ernst Mayr's words,
"evolutionary novelty" is defined as follows:
What particular changes of the phenotype, then, would
qualify [as an 'evolutionary novelty']? Certainly any
change that would permit an organism to perform a new
function. Tentatively, one might restrict the designation
"evolutionary novelty" to any newly acquired structure or
property which permits the assumption of a new function.[1]
Examples of "evolutionary novelties" include the appearance of an
eye (eyes are alleged to have evolved independently 40 to 60+
times),[2] a limb, an internal organ, and a biochemical pathway
(e.g., photosynthesis; also, the biochemistry in vision:
light-sensitive spots, which require a slew of enzymes working in
concert in a complicated biochemical pathway, supposedly evolved
independently 65+ times),[3] where before there was no eye, no
limb, no internal organ, and no biochemical pathway.
================end inserted text================
This particular post never made it past the sci.bio.evolution
moderator.
In _The Growth of Biological Thought_, what does Mayr refer to by
[Mayr]"entirely new organs, new structures, new physiological
capacities, and new behavior patterns"?
LK And you no doubt know that Mayr's central point is that
LK such incipient features can be plausibly explained in
LK Darwinian terms by identifying functional novelty:
LK
LK "a change in function of a structure is the key element
LK in the solution of this problem ... during such a shift
LK of function a structure always passes through a stage
LK when it can simultaneously perform two functions, like
LK the antenna of a Daphnia which is a sense organ as well
LK as a swimming paddle. This duality of function is made
LK possible because the genotype is a highly complex system
LK which always produces certain aspects of the phenotype
LK that had not been directly selected for but are simply
LK `by-products' of the selected genotype. Such
LK by-products are then available as the machinery for new
LK functions" (Mayr, 610-11).
[LK]"Mayr's central point is that such incipient features can be
plausibly explained in Darwinian terms" Agreed. He is, after
all, a neo-Darwinist.
LK What factors might lead to formerly neutral features
LK becoming part of a new function, or serving a new function
LK themselves? Well, as I've been suggesting, the same
LK processes that lead to speciation (separation, different
LK and changing environments, long periods of time) are also
LK likely to select for new functions. Or do you dispute this?
Mayr, Ernst. 1988. _Toward a New Philosophy of Biology:
Observations of an Evolutionist_ (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press). In the chapter "Does
Microevolution Explain Macroevolution?", a paragraph on 409:
A very different class of evolutionary innovations is
involved whenever a structure or other attribute of an
organism is able to assume a new function. Darwin was the
first to recognize the importance of this principle
(1859:454), now called _change of function principle_. It
was later elaborated by Dohrn (1875), Severtsov (1931), and
Mayr (1960). For instance, it is now generally believed
that feathers originated in the ancestors of birds in
connection with temperature regulation (Regal 1975). It was
this function which provided the selection pressure for the
modification of scales into feathers. When an entirely
different selection pressure favored the evolution of
flight, selection made use of the existing structure,
elaborating those particular feathers (wing and tail
feathers) that are essential for efficient flight. Thus,
birds were preadapted for flight because of their possession
of feathers. Numerous other cases are cited in the
literature where such preadaptations permitted a change of
function.
I respectfully decline to accept the allegation that scales
became feathers that helped bird ancestors stay warm, and that
those feathers then became flight feathers residing on bird's
newly-created wings. You mention [LK]"separation, different and
changing environments, long periods of time" How on earth does
separating a scaly reptile population (say snakes) into two or
more groups, and handing them doses of changing environments and
a long amount of time turn step-by-gradual-step some of those
snakes into flying birds? Just where is the evidence from the
laboratory that such types of alleged phenomena can actually
occur? Where, pray tell, is the evidence from the fossil record
that such _did_ occur?
>>df What topic are you referring to? The topic of how
>>df biological novelties arise? I'm certainly not silent on
>>df the topic of the origin of biological novelties. ...
>LK Yes you are. You've offered no specific, constructive
>LK conjectures or evidence on this question.
df How would you, who just now asked what I meant by
df "biological novelties," know?
LK I don't understand what this has to do with my point -- or
LK is this more posturing? Are you suggesting that, because
LK I asked you to clarify a phrase (that has an obvious and
LK trivial sense that you clearly don't mean), I must not
LK know much about this stuff? Do you really believe that
LK you are arguing here with someone who hasn't done at least
LK as much reading in these areas as you?
LK
LK I hope you aren't claiming that you have in fact offered
LK specific, constructive conjectures and evidence that are
LK more plausible explanations than those offered by the
LK neo-Darwinian approach? I must have missed these detailed
LK posts.
I have offered the hypothesis that the operation of a
highly-intelligent intelligence(s) plausibly accounts for the
marvels found in the biological world, more plausibly, in fact,
than the allegation that random alterations in genetic material
plus changes in environment can result in the biological world.
Superiority of the intelligent design hypothesis to the
intelligence-played-no-role stance is also evident when it comes
to the question of how the first living organisms arose.
LK Is it your sense that your original essay and subsequent
LK comments amount to a precise and well-researched critique
LK of the neo-Darwinian approach to explaining "biological
LK novelties"
Please let me know exactly what I've written that you think was
not-precise, or not-well-researched, and I'll look into making my
thoughts more precise and better documented.
LK (by which, again, you really mean something
LK more like functional novelty, in accord with Mayr's
LK discussion of evolutionary novelties). Now you insist
LK that the origin of species was never your concern,
[LK]"Now you insist that the origin of species was never your
concern" I've told you several times (see below for some of
those instances) that I'm not concerned with the origin of
reproductive isolation. I defy you to present remarks in which I
expressed concern about/ interest in the question of whether or
not reproductive isolation can arise.
I have utterly no problem with observations in which
subpopulations that had arisen via geographic isolation
underwent [LK]"gradual (and not so gradual) changes...
leading to distinct populations that can no longer
interbreed."
Neo-darwinists like to allege that certain observations
(e.g. 'speciation,' where 'a species' is defined as 'a
population of reproductively-isolated organisms') lend
credence to their view of the powers of neo-Darwinian
natural selection. I have no quarrel with these
observations of the biological world, nor does the essay
attempt to show that such haven't occurred, nor does the
essay attempt to show that such occurrences can't occur in
the future. Who is going to take on these observations? I
for one am not. Nor have I.
I grant that 'speciation' as I've defined it above can
occur, has occurred, and will occur.
I don't care a whit whether or not mutations can or can't be
a basis for the arrival of reproductive isolation.
LK But then what exactly is your quarrel with a
LK neo-Darwinian approach to macro-evolution?
I can't answer the above question without knowing what you
consider [LK]"macro-evolution." Are you referring to 'the
arrival of reproductive isolation,' because if so, my reply
is "I have no quarrel."
I think we're interested in two different things. You're
interested in the origin of reproductive isolation, while
I'm interested in the origin of biological novelties.
LK only
LK "biological novelties," and you act as if those two
LK problems are radically distinct, and easily separated
LK (they certainly were not for Darwin, nor for Mayr and
LK Severtsov, and contemporary researchers).
I'm aware of reproductive isolation having been observed to
arise. I'd be interested to hear you tell us the most
important/impressive originations of biological novelties that
have been observed.
LK Oh, and your stated intention to ignore a range of other
LK threads here, on topics that are directly relevant to your
LK concerns: that may sound to you like a high-minded
LK dismissal of my vague reference, but it looks to me (and
LK probably others) more like you sticking your head in the
LK sand. If you seriously are interested in this stuff, why
LK would you ignore a bunch of threads in which smart and
LK knowlegeable people contribute information and opinions?
LK This seems bizarre to me.
Ah, yes, the threads that you said [LK]"degenerate into
quibbles":
===============begin inserted text===============
Loren A. King <lk...@mit.edu> on 23 Oct 2000:
david ford:
df ... This is the perfect opportunity for someone to come
df along and provide _evidence_ that mutations and
df environment _can_ result in biological structures. ...
LK Threads along these lines turn up here on talk.origins
LK quite often, usually under subject-headings such as "are
LK there any beneficial mutations?" or "can mutations lead to
LK increased information?" or some such title. In my
LK experience, these threads often begin with some
LK interesting and informative contributions (yes, we have
LK observed some beneficial mutations), but then degenerate
LK into quibbles over what "function" and "information" mean,
LK and what sorts of changes count as "new" and "beneficial".
================end inserted text================
Oh, and I might add that I hardly consider [LK]"interesting and
informative" the observation that [LK]"some beneficial mutations"
have been seen.
Loren A. King <lk...@mit.edu> on 1 Nov 2000:
LK David, I noticed you didn't have anything to say about the
LK following points -- were you satisfied with my answers?
LK If so, perhaps you could say a few words (especially in
LK light of your recent mention of Mayr) about why the
LK conjecture I offer below is so unlikely to be found in
LK nature, and why it relies on a poor model for the
LK evolution of functional novelties?
>LK Suppose that a speciation occurs as neo-Darwinian gradualism
>LK expects, for instance, through separation and environmental
>LK changes over a long stretch of time. Now suppose that, over
>LK the course of this protracted process, some traits that were
>LK not selected against now become advantageous to their
>LK bearers. Suppose further that these traits change in
>LK certain ways as selection pressures come to bear, and that
>LK they come to serve a specific function along with other
>LK traits, a function that none of these traits served
>LK before.
>df What are some concrete examples of "traits"?
>LK Limbs, digits, specific organs, parts of specific organs,
>LK specific biochemical processes that go on within a set of
>LK organs, etc. I'm thinking of the genotype/phenotype
>LK distinction here.
>df What's a hypothetical example of `traits changed
>df in certain ways that come to serve a specific
>df function along with other traits, a function that
>df none of these traits served before'?
>LK Oh I dunno -- maybe some mutation that creates a measure
>LK of photosensitivity in a patch of skin?
Behe, Michael J. 1996. _Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution_ (NY: The Free Press), 307pp. On 38:
We are invited by Dawkins and Darwin to believe that the
evolution of the eye proceeded step-by-step through a series
of plausible intermediates in infinitesimal increments. But
_are_ they infinitesimal? Remember that the
"light-sensitive spot" that Dawkins takes as his starting
point requires a cascade of factors, including
11-_cis_-retinal and rhodopsin, to function. Dawkins
doesn't mention them.
In the traversing of non-life to the creature that the
first possessed a photosensitive spot, about how many beneficial
mutations had to occur?
>LK A mutation in
>LK some part of the genome (say a part that regulates a set
>LK of developmental processes associated with that part of
>LK the organism's skin)
or a part of the genome that codes for an enzyme that proofreads
during DNA replication
>LK might make a range of other mutations
>LK more likely in that part of the genome. These mutations
>LK might be expressed as varying degrees of photosensitivity.
>LK To the degree that sets of mutations in this area lead to
>LK a functional trait that makes the bearers better able to
>LK discern certain features of their environment (in ways
>LK that non-bearers are unable to do), bearers would have a
>LK reproductive advantage.
What's a [LK]"reproductive advantage?" The capacity to produce
more numerous offspring? What, in general, is the connection
between new "traits"/ [LK]"limbs, digits, specific organs, parts
of specific organs, specific biochemical processes that go on
within a set of organs, etc" and the acquisition of a
[LK]"reproductive advantage"?
>LK This is completely off the cuff
Loren A. King
>df ... You mention "separation, different and changing
>df environments, long periods of time" How on earth does
>df separating a scaly reptile population (say snakes) into
>df two or more groups, and handing them doses of changing
>df environments and a long amount of time turn
>df step-by-gradual-step some of those of snakes into
>df flying birds?
Personally I don't know, but I don't understand the basis
of your incredulity. It doesn't seem outlandish to me
that, under changing environments, some variations might
be selected for over really long stretches of time,
leading to the differing phenotypes above. I think
sometimes people just forget how enormous the relevant
timescales here are.
Of course, maybe the Darwinian conjecture is wrong, sure,
that may well be the case. But all you've offered here is
your incredulity, a few references to other people's
sceptical assessments of the fossil record, and then a
bald appeal to intelligent design. Sorry, but I just
don't find that very persuasive. Nor do I find the
Darwinian conjecture as unlikely as you. I'm not wed to
it as the absolute truth, and again, it wouldn't surprise
me if we eventually had to dispense with it, or modify it
nearly beyond recognition. Hey, that's science. But I do
not share your incredulity, nor am I persuaded by your
attempts to justify that incredulity (more on this below
...)
> Just where is the evidence from the laboratory that such
> types of alleged phenomena can actually occur?
What sort of laboratory experiments are you looking for?
Ones that seal off enormous and complex environments and
their diverse populations of reproducing organisms, and
then separate some populations every now and then, and
change their environments, over many millions of years?
Or do you think that a few decades of drosophila research
(all those mutations and they're still fruitflies, after
all) is sufficient to reject the hypothesis that mutations
and cross-over effects (and perhaps other, as yet poorly
understood sources of variation), combined with genetic
drift and natural selection over long stretches of time
and changing environments, can result in functional
novelties and a diversity of phenotypes?
On a more constructuve note, it would be interesting to
see if the recent enthusiasm for big agent-based computer
simulations has begun to extend to these bigger historical
questions about how phenotypes can diverse under various
environmental changes. Perhaps someone who actually knows
something about these topics can tell me whether anyone is
doing such simulations, in an attempt to mimic the huge
timescales and environmental changes typical of earth's
history? That would be cool work, I think. I know a
couple of guys at the SFI have evolved some reasonably
complex behaviours from simple inheritance and interaction
rules (Robert Axtell and Johsua Goldstein's "Sugarscape"
model, where vision and metabolism of each agent are
heritable traits, agents search over a surface on which
resources are unevenly distributed, and reproduction is a
function of resource consumption).
> Where, pray tell, is the evidence from the fossil record
> that such _did_ occur?
I have to defer here to people who know something about
paleontology, systematics, and population genetics (I am
not one of them), but my general sense is that there are
some very specific claims made in these literatures about
evolutionary trajectories, and a fair amount of evidence
gets analysed. Now, it wouldn't surprise me if both the
evidence and the claims made in these literatures are
contentious; but to be clear, you have not engaged with
any of this enormous body of work. All I've seen you do
here is quote general remarks by a few authors who claim
that the fossil evidence doesn't support Darwinian
gradualism (also, you never explain much about what the
evidence does in fact support, save a few vague nods to
intelligent design). I've yet to see you actually engage
with any of the specific conjectures and data that you
claim are so critically flawed.
When challenged on this, your response is invariably to
ask the poster to cite this evidence. Well, I for one am
no expert on this material, and insofar as I do have some
modest knowledge, I not here to do your homework for you,
least of all in an area I know precious little about. But
my relative ignorance does not excuse yours; after all, I
am not insisting that the evidence and prevailing
hypotheses are critically flawed. Nor, of course, am I
claiming it is uncontentious -- as I said one in our
earlier exchanges, I am not here to champion the
neo-Darwinian approach. No, my chief activity in our
exchanges has been to point out that you have not
adequately supported the sweeping charges you've made. I
certainly don't need to be an expert in these fields to
recognize that you haven't consulted them. They're out
there; go and read them.
>LK I hope you aren't claiming that you have in fact offered
>LK specific, constructive conjectures and evidence that are
>LK more plausible explanations than those offered by the
>LK neo-Darwinian approach? I must have missed these detailed
>LK posts.
>df I have offered the hypothesis that the operation of a
>df highly-intelligent intelligence(s) plausibly accounts
>df for the marvels found in the biological world, more
>df plausibly, in fact, than the allegation that random
>df alterations in genetic material plus changes in
>df environment can result in the biological world.
You've made nothing like this case. All you've done is
summarize some general suspicions (voiced by others) that
the neo-Darwinian approach does not seem adequate to
account for the origins of diverse functional forms in
nature. It would be nice if you critiqued some specific
Darwinian claims, but I can life without that. However,
if you want to start supporting your favored design
conjecture, you can address the concerns I raised recently
in a thread on "Directed Panspermy: an Economic Basis for
Scepticism," and you can dig back and read some of my
exchanges with Julie Thomas on problems with the design
conjecture as a viable research programme in the life
sciences. I'd be happy to repost any of these if you
wish.
>LK Is it your sense that your original essay and subsequent
>LK comments amount to a precise and well-researched critique
>LK of the neo-Darwinian approach to explaining "biological
>LK novelties"
>df Please let me know exactly what I've written that you
>df think was not-precise, or not-well-researched, and
>df I'll look into making my thoughts more precise and
>df better documented.
Okay, how about you argue against some specific
conjectures and evidentiary claims made by contemporary
researchers in paleontology and systematics (your
incredulity regarding scales and feathers is a start, but
far more detail is needed to justify your incredulous
stance). Get specific -- show how particular evolutionary
trajectories and hierarchies advanced in contemporary
literatures are not supported by either a plausible causal
model or extant fossil or molecular evidence.
>df What's a "reproductive advantage?" The capacity to
>df produce more numerous offspring? What, in general, is
>df the connection between new "traits ... limbs, digits,
>df specific organs, parts of specific organs, specific
>df biochemical processes that go on within a set of organs,
>df etc" and the acquisition of a "reproductive
>df advantage"?
Okay, now I get the sense that you really don't understand
Darwin's central thesis, or you're just playing dumb here.
Again, I'm not going to do your homework for you (I seem
to remember that being something of a mantra in my
previous posts in this thread). If you seriously mean
what you write above, I suggest you go back and read
Darwin and Mayr more carefully. But I am interested to
hear about your constructive contribution to these
matters: perhaps you could explain how, precisely,
intelligent design is a superior explanation of the
natural world, both in terms of the model and extant
evidence?
L.
wf...@ptd.net
in case you hadnt noticed, i'll let you in on a little secret:
the universe isnt a light bulb. 'tis true. that comes as a shock to
creationists, but the universe is not a human product. there is no
proof of design. we KNOW how lightbulbs get made.
we dont know how universes get made. ford isnt gonna tell us. but he's
in good company. not a single 'design theorist' has ever said a single
word...not one...about how design works.
what we see from them is what dave did above...say that unanswered
questions in science implicitly lead to 'intelligent design'
answers...thus, god of the gaps.
david ford
david ford on 3 Nov 2000:
bob on 1 Nov 2000:
>b now lets see....dave doesnt like evolution because
>b there's no evidence for 'blindwatchmaking' mechanisms....
>b
>b he does, however, like creationism even though there
>b are no mechanisms for 'intelligence directed' creation....
>b
>b can we say OXYMORON boys and girls??
df [b]"there are no mechanisms for 'intelligence directed' creation"
df As I look around, I see a stereo, lightbulb, and desk. The
df stereo, lightbulb, and desk arose via the operation of multiple
df intelligences. Intelligence was responsible for the stereo's,
df lightbulb's, and desk's beginning-to-exist. In short, there
df _are_ [b]"mechanisms for 'intelligence directed' creation."
b in case you hadnt noticed, i'll let you in on a little secret:
b
b the universe isnt a light bulb. 'tis true. that comes as a
b shock to creationists, but the universe is not a human product.
I'm unaware of anybody that says the universe is a product of
human intelligence.
b there is no proof of design. we KNOW how lightbulbs get made.
Individuals had lived in the 1600s didn't [b]"KNOW how lightbulbs
get made." Yet if we were to show a lightbulb to a 1600s person,
I'm sure he/she would conclude that the lightbulb strongly
exhibited the appearance of having been designed. In a similar
manner, biologists of the 1900s didn't know how to create life.
Yet if we were to show a lifeform to a 1900 biologist, I'm sure
he/she would confidently conclude that the lifeform strongly
exhibited the appearance of having been designed:
===============begin inserted text===============
Regarding this complexity, Monod stated in 1970, "the simplest
living system known to us, the bacterial cell, [is] a tiny piece
of extremely complex and efficient machinery."144 The extent of
this complexity had begun to be grasped by at least as early as
1921; reports origin-of-life researcher A.I. Oparin,
He [S. Kostychev in 1921] argues that even the most simply
organized living things possess a very complex, delicate and
perfect protoplasmic structure. The various vital processes
are made possible by this protoplasmic structure and perfect
functional differentiation. The metabolism of matter and
energy characteristic for living things would be entirely
impossible without a specially adapted apparatus, and it is
highly improbable that such a complex apparatus could have
arisen fortuitously. If the reader were asked to consider
the probability that in the midst of inorganic matter a
large factory with smoke stacks, pipes, boilers, machines,
ventilators, etc. suddenly sprang into existence by some
natural process, let us say a volcanic eruption, this would
be taken at best for a silly joke. Yet, even the simplest
microorganism has a more complex structure than any factory,
and therefore its fortuitous creation is very much less
probable.145
144, 145: <http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=628861101>
================end inserted text================
b we dont know how universes get made. ford isnt gonna tell us.
b but he's in good company. not a single 'design theorist' has
b ever said a single word...not one...about how design works.
Design begins in an intelligence's mind. Those thoughts must be
acted upon if the mental creation is to begin to exist as a
material creation.
b what we see from them is what dave did above...say that unanswered
b questions in science implicitly lead to 'intelligent design'
b answers...thus, god of the gaps.
I don't accept the proposition that [b]"unanswered questions in
science implicitly lead to 'intelligent design' answers," nor
have I said that I accept that proposition, nor have you
demonstrated that what I've stated leads ineluctably to that
proposition.
hrgr...@my-deja.com
100...@linux1.gl.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> bob <wf...@ptd.net> on 3 Nov 2000:
> david ford on 3 Nov 2000:
> bob on 1 Nov 2000:
>
> >b there's no evidence for 'blindwatchmaking' mechanisms....
> >b
> >b he does, however, like creationism even though there
> >b are no mechanisms for 'intelligence directed' creation....
> >b
> >b can we say OXYMORON boys and girls??
>
> df As I look around, I see a stereo, lightbulb, and desk. The
> df stereo, lightbulb, and desk arose via the operation of multiple
> df intelligences.
No. They "arose" in machines via well-established physical and chemical
processes. That's the mechanism that wf3h is asking for.
HRG.
Intelligence was responsible for the stereo's,
> df lightbulb's, and desk's beginning-to-exist.
In short, there
> df _are_ [b]"mechanisms for 'intelligence directed' creation."
<snip>
> b in case you hadnt noticed, i'll let you in on a little secret:
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
david ford
Natural Selection VS Reality" on 22 Sep 1999:
PvV This is funny
bob <wf...@ptd.net>:
david ford on 20 Sep 1999:
df Does the theory of NS make predictions that match up with
df observation?
df If "yes," what are the references to the literature wherein
df the successes are detailed and touted as successes?
PvV 1. It predicts that some genes will die out,
PvV because they are not fit to survive.
Rephrasing, I get, 'It predicts that some genes will not survive,
because they're not fit to survive.'
PvV The proof of this is so evident,
PvV that nobody ever cared to go into the details.
PvV and the statement itself is so self-evident
PvV that nobody would ever brag about any proof at all.
All tables are tables. All married individuals are married. The
proof of this is so evident that nobody ever cares to go into the
details. The statements are so self-evident that nobody would
ever brag about having any proof for them.
PvV On the other hand
PvV I have never heard a creationist,
PvV point to a single species with genes
PvV that couldn't produce any offspring,
The dodo bird had genes, and there hasn't been any dodo offspring
in over 100 years.
PvV 2. It predicts that favourable genes will multiply
PvV more rapidly and gradually replace the old ones.
What's the definition of a 'favorable gene'? If it's 'a gene
that multiplies more rapidly than other genes and gradually
replaces them,' then I rephrase your remark as 'It predicts that
genes that multiply more rapidly than other genes and gradually
replace them will multiply more rapidly than and gradually
replace the old genes.' Another statement that's true by
definition.
PvV If you really need references about the success of this
PvP prediction you probably have the genes of Homo Erectus.
I try not to request references for tautologies.
b hoisted by his own petard i'd say.
b
b im not an evolutionary biologist, merely a chemist. but i'd be
b delighted if intelligent designers could meet this standard
b they want to set for the science of evolutionary biology.
PvV How on earth can you become a chemist
PvV and not know the thirst thing about DNA?
PvV
PvV The discovery of DNA was the greatest success of the
PvV theory thus far.
Are you saying the theory of natural selection predicts the
existence of deoxyribonucleic acid? If you are, do you have a
reference for that?
PvV As most people do not seem to realize
PvV Darwin had no idea on how features were passed from
PvV one generation to another.
PvV He simply presumed they did somehow.
The Lamarckian hypothesis, like the theory of natural selection,
has features being passed from one generation to the next.
PvV He would have been overjoyed that people nowadays can show
PvV you exactly where they are.
PvV
PvV Peter van Velzen
PvV Amstelveen
PvV The Netherlands
Jon Fleming
>PvV On the other hand
>PvV I have never heard a creationist,
>PvV point to a single species with genes
>PvV that couldn't produce any offspring,
>
>The dodo bird had genes, and there hasn't been any dodo offspring
>in over 100 years.
Ducking the question. There's a big difference between "couldn't
produce any offspring" and "died out due to environmental factors".
---------------------
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
david ford
david ford:
bob <wf...@ptd.net> on 3 Nov 2000:
b now lets see....dave doesnt like evolution because
b there's no evidence for 'blindwatchmaking' mechanisms....
b
b he does, however, like creationism even though there
b are no mechanisms for 'intelligence directed' creation....
b
b can we say OXYMORON boys and girls??
df [b]"there are no mechanisms for 'intelligence directed' creation"
df As I look around, I see a stereo, lightbulb, and desk. The
df stereo, lightbulb, and desk arose via the operation of multiple
df intelligences.
HRG No. They "arose" in machines via well-established
HRG physical and chemical processes. That's the mechanism
HRG that wf3h is asking for.
Suppose I grant your claim that the stereo, lightbulb, and desk
[HRG]"'arose' in machines via well-established physical and
chemical processes." Would you agree with me that the machines
have arisen via the operation of intelligence? (If so, the
stereo etc. _did_ arise via the operation of intelligences, in
that intelligences made machines that made the stereo etc.). If
you instead reply that the machines themselves [HRG]"'arose' in
machines via well-established physical and chemical processes,"
then I'll ask you whether the machines that made the other
machines arose via intelligences. And you can't keep saying in
reply to my question 'Did _those_ machines arise via the acts of
intelligences?', 'No, machines made those machines' because
physical existence began to exist in the big bang.
df Intelligence was responsible for the stereo's,
david ford
Selection VS Reality" on 13 Oct 1999:
david ford:
>df Experimental evidence for the theory of natural selection is
>df lacking-- and not for want of trying-- yet the theory remains
>df widely accepted.
>B Because the evidence is not lacking.
df Please list and briefly describe 2 lines of evidence
df supporting the theory of NS.
B You've got to be either kidding, or in deep
B denial.
B
B 1) Bacteria evolving a resistance to antibiotics.
B his has been explained in this News Group so many
B times before, that's it's not likely that you
B haven't seen it. Take one bacteria, put it in a
B petri dish, and raise a colony. Divide the
B colony. Apply a full strength dose of an
B antibiotic of your choice to one colony, and a
B very dilute concentration to the other. Colony
B "a", which received the full dose, is wiped out,
B colony "B", which received a weak dose, has some
B survivors. Repeat the application of the
B antibiotic, but in slightly stronger doses, and
B keep raising new colonies from the surviving
B population. After a short time (by human
B standards) You now have a colony of bacteria that
B is immune, and may even eat, the antibiotic
It's my understanding that the antibiotic-resistant bacteria
possess mutations such that they can no longer take up the
antibiotic, and consequently are resistant to the antibiotic. If
this is correct, then the example of a bacterial colony's
exhibiting increasing loss of uptake ability runs totally counter
to the theory of natural selection's proposal that mutations plus
the environment result in new structures possessing _new_
functions.
Grasse had something to say about bacteria.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=629441259
B 2) "Beak of the Finch" has been discussed here
B often too. The finches with large heavy beaks
B became dominant after a period of drought on the
B Galapagos Islands, since the plants that did well
B in that particular environment had seeds with
B harder and tougher shells. The beaks did not grow
B heavier from use, but were inherited
B characteristics. The variations with the smaller
B bills did not fare as well.
And this is supposed to be evidence that mutations + natural
selection can result in the appearance of finches, and finch
beaks, in the first place??
Has it ever been proved that the genes for large, and for small,
finch beaks, arose in part from the appearance of mutations?
B 3) Guppies in the wilds of Trinidad. Guppies
B were placed in pools, and underwent size and
B reproductive adaptations in successive generations
B in relationship to the population of predators
B within that particular isolated pool. The
B surprising thing was how fast these changes
B evolved (But then again, guppies have lots of
B offspring, in general, so it shouldn't have been
B too much of a surprise.)
[B]"underwent size and reproductive adaptations in successive
generations" Details, please.
B 4) The Lizard thing in the Caribbean. A
B population of lizards was relocated from an Island
B with both trees and low scrub vegetation, to an
B island with only short vegetation (and no native
B lizard population). The lizards had a range of
B leg length, from short to long. After twenty
B years on the scrub island, all lizards were of the
B short legged variety. Long legs were either a
B liability, or short legs were an advantage.
So you're saying there were both long legs and short legs at the
outset, and over time, short legs became dominant. I'm sorry, I
don't see how this scenario is supposed to provide evidence for
the claim that mutations plus the operation of the environment
can give rise to lizards and lizard legs in the first place.
Would it be asking too much if I were to request that you to
provide references to the literature supporting your allegation
that these bacteria, finch beaks, guppies, and lizards examples
spoken of provide confirmation of the theory of natural
selection?
B Oops, that's 4 (of many)
>df Could anybody tell me the reasons the theory is accepted
>df despite the absence of experimental confirmation?
>B Because there is experimental confirmation. Seen any
>B black polar bears?
df No, but for what it's worth, I've seen black
df squirrels. What does black polar bears or the lack
df thereof have to do with the theory of NS?
B A black squirrel is not going to be stalking an
B acorn in the arctic, and even if one was, I doubt
B the acorn could outrun the squirrel. OTOH, a
B black polar bear would be pretty easy for a seal
B to see against all that snow and ice, no?
Yes, I think that a seal in the Arctic could more easily see a
black polar bear than a light one. What relevance has this to
the theory that mutations plus the environment can result in the
appearance of new structures having new functions?
>B The experiments with bacteria that develop
>B resistance to antibiotics is a perfect example of
>B "natural selection", even if it is done in a petri
>B dish.
>B
>B Then there's the Lizards thing that was done over
>B a twenty year period in the Caribbean...
df What do the lizards and the antibiotic-resistant
df bacteria have to do with the theory of NS?
B See above.
df Brady, R.H. 1982. "Dogma and doubt" _Biological Journal of the
df Linnean Society_ 17: 79-96. On 89, a paragraph and the following
df sentence, and on 90, two paragraphs:
RHB Darwin proposed that selective pressure could approximate the
RHB regulative control of an intelligent breeder and supply a
RHB direction to otherwise random changes in a population. This
RHB directed progression of changes would then lead toward
RHB optimalization of adaptation within the context of the given
RHB environment. There are two parts to this proposal. The first is
RHB that selective pressure can approximate the breeder; the second,
RHB which I termed 'central', is that the differential so produced
RHB can culminate in new forms.
B And it clearly does.
RHB The industrial melanism observations
RHB have confirmed prediction [what 'prediction' are you talking
RHB about?? -df]
B The prediction that variations will convey an
B advantage, dependent upon the environment.
RHB with regard to the first part, i.e. a specific
RHB change in allele frequency, parallel to that produced by a
RHB breeder, may be caused by one-sided predator pressure (one-sided
RHB in that the melanistic variant is better camouflaged). Can this
RHB confirmation be transferred to part two? Not at all, since this
RHB is the more radical claim. ....
B Bwahahahah!
RHB Those who put forth the _Biston_ evidence as a test of Darwin's
RHB thesis are either very unclear about which part of the thesis
RHB they mean, or they evidently 'know' something the critics do not
RHB know-- namely, that part two of the theory is beyond any need of
RHB support. That is, they have already been convinced that the
RHB accumulation of random changes _is_ the proper mechanism, and
RHB they point to the approximation of breeder regulation by predator
RHB pressure as a confirmation of the only necessary prelude.
B Pphphphphph! The accumulation of change is not a
B mechanism, it's a "result".
RHB If our aim is empirical investigation, any belief that can set up
RHB shop as 'knowledge' is always a fatal possession, for it
RHB undermines the basic project. The biologist who 'knows' that any
RHB differential can lead to new types is admitting that no empirical
RHB support is sought or needed for that proposition, which thereby
RHB becomes an _a priori_ truth.
B Hey, if there is supporting evidence, it must be
B true! Especially if the evidence can be tested
B and verified, and done so by anyone that wants to
B conduct the same experiment, or a variation
B thereof.
RHB Critics who are not blessed with
RHB similar metaphysical
B What's "metaphysical" about physical, empirical
B evidence?
RHB insight may gain the distinct impression
RHB that they are not viewing the same world, and there is some value
RHB in the metaphor. Whatever we actually believe we take to be
RHB identical with reality, and therefore _not_ part of a hypothesis
RHB that stands in need of support.
B Ah, yes, philosophical mush, at it's mushiest.
RHB Those who believe the Darwinian
RHB theory apply it, or parts of it, to their observations
RHB as a known parameter.
B Seems to work quite well.
RHB Their results are artifacts of their belief, but this
RHB fact can hardly be visible to them until they are willing to
RHB question what they have previously taken for granted.
B One also has to question those who cannot see the
B obvious, and seek to cast doubt of valid science
B based upon religious dogma, or philosophical mushy
B headedness.
david ford
Natural Selection VS Reality" on 29 Sep 1999:
david ford on 28 Sep 1999:
J snip entire post:
J
J I found a lot of that interesting but was wondering what
J it was for, or in response to etc. Also, if you had
J said any of it or was it all quotes etc.
Allusion is often made in talk.origins to Patterson's remarks,
and I attempted to provide context for and actual text of some of
his remarks.
It was clear from the post what was introductory remarks of mine,
and what were quotes of identified others.
J Did you want any specific type of reply to a point or
J question of some sort?
Not really.
J I assume it was asking for opinions about the relevance
J of the Patterson question and misquote allegations?
Not really.
J I think that when someone asks me if anything in my field
J (immunology) is "unequivocally" true (as implied here)
J I would take a step back also. If they asked was there
J anything that the vast bulk of evidence could be used to
J indicate it was most likely true then that is different.
J I think that you have to keep expecting that the next
J experiment you do could show how completely wrong you or
J others were before. I am more certain of much that is
J wrong than right. If I had to say the one thing in evolution
J that I hold as true it is that if a trait is required
J for survival in a given environment that only those in
J a population with that trait will survive (I.e. drug resistant
J cancers, pathogens). Hence vary the selection for more
J effective treatment. Seems too simple somehow.
[J]"the one thing in evolution that I hold as true it is that if
a trait is required for survival in a given environment that only
those in a population with that trait will survive" To
illustrate, the trait of chronviteashousness is required for
bears to survive in a particular environment; only those bears
that possess the trait will survive in the environment in
question. [J]"Seems too simple somehow." Statements that are
true by definition _are_ simple.
david ford
Selection VS Reality" on 5 Oct 1999:
david ford on 5 Oct 1999:
df According to neo-Darwinism, mutations in organisms'
df DNA sequences is the raw material natural selection
df works with to produce blindwatchmaking, yet mutations
df are routinely observed to result in _cancer_
df and genetic diseases, not the arrival of novel
df body structures and organs. Could someone please
df tell me how exactly the neo-Darwinian mechanism
df is compatible with the fact that mutation routinely
df causes cancer and disease? Refs to the literature
df would be great.
CD Obvious logical error: confusing "routinely" with "always."
Is someone going to give me the refs or not?
CD Less obvious error: confusing the effects of a mutation on
CD an adult organism with the effects on a developing embryo.
Ian M. has told us that are about 200-300 'beneficial' mutations
known to exist. How many of that number would you say redound to
the benefit of developing embryos?
Mutations that occur early in development would, I think, be much
more likely to have harmful effects than later-occurring
mutations because proper later development depends upon proper
early development.
CD Re the title: I'll take the theory of natural selection.
CD You can keep the Versus Reality; thanks anyway.
david ford
david ford on 10 Nov 2000:
Peter van Velzen <pbamvv[at]worldonline.nl> on 22 Sep 1999:
PvV On the other hand
PvV I have never heard a creationist,
PvV point to a single species with genes
PvV that couldn't produce any offspring,
df The dodo bird had genes, and there hasn't been any dodo
df offspring in over 100 years.
JF Ducking the question.
No question was asked. Rather, a claim was made, and I provided
a statement showing that the claim is presently incorrect.
JF There's a big difference
JF between "couldn't produce any offspring" and "died out
JF due to environmental factors".
You don't say. What is this big difference? In both instances
we have things dying out.
Your remark reminds me, many organisms have become extinct as a
result of man's actions, including the dodo and passenger pigeon.
If neo-Darwinian natural selection is so powerful, where are its
creations produced in response to the man-influenced environment?
WickedDyno
<Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0011...@irix2.gl.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
You mean like rats and racoons and other scavengers living off our
garbage? Mosquitos speciating in subway tunnels? HIV, evolved to live
in humans from SIV (Simian Immunovirus)?
wf...@ptd.net
>HRG <hrgr...@my-deja.com> on 5 Nov 2000:
>david ford:
>bob <wf...@ptd.net> on 3 Nov 2000:
>
>b now lets see....dave doesnt like evolution because
>b there's no evidence for 'blindwatchmaking' mechanisms....
>b
>b he does, however, like creationism even though there
>b are no mechanisms for 'intelligence directed' creation....
>b
>b can we say OXYMORON boys and girls??
>
>df [b]"there are no mechanisms for 'intelligence directed' creation"
>df As I look around, I see a stereo, lightbulb, and desk. The
>df stereo, lightbulb, and desk arose via the operation of multiple
>df intelligences.
>
>HRG No. They "arose" in machines via well-established
>HRG physical and chemical processes. That's the mechanism
>HRG that wf3h is asking for.
>
>Suppose I grant your claim that the stereo, lightbulb, and desk
>[HRG]"'arose' in machines via well-established physical and
>chemical processes." Would you agree with me that the machines
>have arisen via the operation of intelligence?
no. this is impossible. it cannot happen.
they arose because there is a mechanism for making glass. there is a
mechanism for making stereos. intelligence does not make glass.
(If so, the
>stereo etc. _did_ arise via the operation of intelligences, in
>that intelligences made machines that made the stereo etc.)
then your assumption is wrong.
.. If
>you instead reply that the machines themselves [HRG]"'arose' in
>machines via well-established physical and chemical processes,"
>then I'll ask you whether the machines that made the other
>machines arose via intelligences.
my dog is intelligent. it cannot make a lightbulb. concentration camps
and hospitals are both products of intelligence yet they contradict
each other. 'intelligent design' is a meaningless concept.
WickedDyno
> Charles Dye <raster[at]highfiber.com> in "Re: Theory of Natural
> Selection VS Reality" on 5 Oct 1999:
> david ford on 5 Oct 1999:
>
> df According to neo-Darwinism, mutations in organisms'
> df DNA sequences is the raw material natural selection
> df works with to produce blindwatchmaking, yet mutations
> df are routinely observed to result in _cancer_
> df and genetic diseases, not the arrival of novel
> df body structures and organs. Could someone please
> df tell me how exactly the neo-Darwinian mechanism
> df is compatible with the fact that mutation routinely
> df causes cancer and disease? Refs to the literature
> df would be great.
>
> CD Obvious logical error: confusing "routinely" with "always."
>
> Is someone going to give me the refs or not?
It's very simple. Just because some mutations cause cancer and disease,
doesn't mean all do.
> CD Less obvious error: confusing the effects of a mutation on
> CD an adult organism with the effects on a developing embryo.
>
> Ian M. has told us that are about 200-300 'beneficial' mutations
> known to exist. How many of that number would you say redound to
> the benefit of developing embryos?
> Mutations that occur early in development would, I think, be much
> more likely to have harmful effects than later-occurring
> mutations because proper later development depends upon proper
> early development.
Mutations cna have different effects on adults and embryos. A mutation
that produces cancer in the adult, for example, could cause the embryo
to grow faster, giving the individual an advantage early in life.
wf...@ptd.net
i know ford's not stupid, so he's lying here. there is no 'loss of
uptake' on the part of bacterial resistance. as boikat points out, the
bacteria may evolve to EAT the antibiotic. how this gets turned into a
'loss of uptake' in ford's magical realm is something he doesnt
discuss.
>
>Grasse had something to say about bacteria.
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=629441259
>
>B 2) "Beak of the Finch" has been discussed here
>B often too. The finches with large heavy beaks
>B became dominant after a period of drought on the
>B Galapagos Islands, since the plants that did well
>B in that particular environment had seeds with
>B harder and tougher shells. The beaks did not grow
>B heavier from use, but were inherited
>B characteristics. The variations with the smaller
>B bills did not fare as well.
>
>And this is supposed to be evidence that mutations + natural
>selection can result in the appearance of finches, and finch
>beaks, in the first place??
>Has it ever been proved that the genes for large, and for small,
>finch beaks, arose in part from the appearance of mutations?
since alleles code for beak size, perhaps ford can tell us what the
difference in allele structure is called. answer: mutation.
QED
ford aint stupid. so he's taken a legitimate comment...that bacteria
eat antibiotics when they develop resistance, and turned this into a
'loss of uptake'...whatever the hell that means
and so the creationist wheel turns...
hrgr...@my-deja.com
100...@irix2.gl.umbc.edu>,
> b there's no evidence for 'blindwatchmaking' mechanisms....
> b
> b he does, however, like creationism even though there
> b are no mechanisms for 'intelligence directed' creation....
> b
> b can we say OXYMORON boys and girls??
>
> df [b]"there are no mechanisms for 'intelligence directed' creation"
> df As I look around, I see a stereo, lightbulb, and desk. The
> df stereo, lightbulb, and desk arose via the operation of multiple
> df intelligences.
>
> HRG physical and chemical processes. That's the mechanism
> HRG that wf3h is asking for.
>
> Suppose I grant your claim that the stereo, lightbulb, and desk
> [HRG]"'arose' in machines via well-established physical and
> chemical processes." Would you agree with me that the machines
> stereo etc. _did_ arise via the operation of intelligences, in
> you instead reply that the machines themselves [HRG]"'arose' in
> machines via well-established physical and chemical processes,"
> then I'll ask you whether the machines that made the other
> machines arose via intelligences.
Some machines, tools etc. arose via well-established electrochemical
and mechanical mechanisms (nerve and muscle action) which translate
brain processes into mechanical actions. Again they were not made
*directly* by intelligence (as in "Let there be a hammer"), but by
naturalistic processes.
We have no example - and that's what w3fh is asking for -
of "intelligences" (whatever that may mean) *directly* making any pot,
tool, machine etc.
HRG.
And you can't keep saying in
> reply to my question 'Did _those_ machines arise via the acts of
> intelligences?', 'No, machines made those machines' because
> physical existence began to exist in the big bang.
Not necessarily true. The Big Bang is just a threshold beyond which our
*current* physical theories cannot be extrapolated
> df Intelligence was responsible for the stereo's,
> df lightbulb's, and desk's beginning-to-exist. In short, there
> df _are_ [b]"mechanisms for 'intelligence directed' creation."
>
>
david ford
Natural Selection VS Reality" on 31 Dec 1999:
david ford:
Duckfeet on 26 Dec 1999:
>D That isnt an argument, its an assertion. Just like all creationist
>D "arguments". Thats improbable. Why? well look at it, uuh, well, just
>D coz it is. The standard response to creationist drivil about the eye
>D is simple, start listing all the flaws in the eye, thus proving that
>D no sober intelligent designer could be involved. A list an explanation
>D of the eye flaws are readily available, I could give you a few
>D pointers -eg, Picture a round eye -at the front is the lens, at the
>D back the receptors. you would expect the "threads" to go from the back
>D of the eye by from receptors, then to the brain. But some drunk
>D creator let them go back into the eye, and then back out again, in the
>D area known as the blind spot. Lets not also mention that a better
>D designed eye would eliminate the inversion problem from the start.
df The standard response to creationist drivel about Microsoft Windows
df being designed is simple-- just start listing all the flaws in
df Windows, thus proving that no sober intelligent designer could have
df been involved in its appearance. A list of Windows's flaws is readily
df available, but I could give you a few pointers, e.g., it's prone to
df locking up. One would expect this to not happen had intelligence
df actually been involved in Windows's beginning-to-exist. I'll also
df mention that a better-designed operating system would eliminate other
df problems from the start. Clearly, Windows arose via totally-non-
df intelligence-directed-processes.
D Bad analogy. Microsoft programmers dont claim to be
D omnipotent and omniscient. They dont claim to be God,
D they dont claim to be infallible.
So you're claiming that if an omnipotent, omniscient, and
infallible intelligence creates, then that intelligence _won't_
create things possessing what you consider [D]"flaws"? If you are
indeed claiming this, please present the evidence and/or arguments
supporting your claim, if you're aware of any.
Paul Gate <gat09[at]dial.pipex.com> on 27 Dec 1999:
david ford:
df The standard response to creationist drivel about Microsoft Windows
df being designed is simple-- just start listing all the flaws in
df Windows, thus proving that no sober intelligent designer could have
df been involved in its appearance. A list of Windows's flaws is readily
df available, but I could give you a few pointers, e.g., it's prone to
df locking up. One would expect this to not happen had intelligence
df actually been involved in Windows's beginning-to-exist. I'll also
df mention that a better-designed operating system would eliminate other
df problems from the start. Clearly, Windows arose via totally-non-
df intelligence-directed-processes.
PG Windows was not supposedly created by a perfect entity,
PG incapable of error.
Do you think that [PG]"a perfect entity, incapable of error"
wouldn't make what's seen in biology?
What do you mean by [PG]"perfect"?
Which of the following would you consider to possess an [PG]"error"
if made by [PG]"a perfect entity"?:
a blind spot in an eye
a creature with a finite lifespan
a creature that experiences pain
a creature that eats other creatures
a creature that uses ploys to trap prey
a creature that's susceptible to coming down with cancer
a creature lacking vision
a creature lacking the sense of smell.
PG The theory that it was created by
PG programmers, is plausible enough
PG
PG A) We have seen and measured programmers
PG B) "windows" is a likely outcome of their activities
C) Windows strongly exhibits the appearance of having been put
together by an intelligent entity (or entities).
D) No plausible mechanism exists for the non-intelligence-directed-
at-any-level appearance of Windows.
david ford
Natural Selection VS Reality" on 6 Dec 1999:
david ford:
df Have any neo-Darwinists
df described _how_ legs could have turned into mouth parts?
df described _how_ the biochemistry of vision arose?
df described _how_ mammalian blood clotting arose?
df described _how_ cilia arose?
df described _how_ photosynthesis arose?
df
df Keith R. took a stab at a variant of the last question,
df but has failed to reply to my requests for additional
df (and necessary) detail.
DJ Necessary? Why necessary? It would be nice if we had a
DJ detailed explanation for every complex phenomenon, but it is
DJ hardly surprising that we don't.
Because without the detailed explanations, neo-Darwinian claims
such as "The neo-Darwinian mechanism produced cilia,
photosynthesis, and the mammalian blood clotting system" are
nothing more than handwaving and abracadabra.
[DJ]"It would be nice if we had a detailed explanation for every
complex phenomenon" For what [DJ]"complex phenomen[a]" does
neo-Darwinian thought have a detailed explanation?
Neil W Rickert <rickert+nn[at]cs.niu.edu> on 24 Oct 1999:
david ford:
df Would you agree with my contention that the number of
df known neutral and known deleterious mutations is
df overwhelmingly greater than the number of beneficial
df mutations, i.e., (N + D) >> B ?
NR I'm not sure why you find this interesting or significant. If a
NR species is well adapted, we should expect that most mutations
NR would be neutral or deleterious. If we found a species in
NR which most mutations were beneficial, that would be evidence
NR that the species is poorly adapted to its present environment.
What you mean by [NR]"well adapted" and [NR]"poorly adapted"?
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Richard W. Holm. "Patterns and Populations"
_Science_ 137: 652-7 (1962). On 656:
Few nonevolutionists realize that the term _adaptation_ is one
of the least understood and most misused in population biology.
Neil W Rickert
(Wow -- that's a long delayed reply).
>Neil W Rickert <rickert+nn[at]cs.niu.edu> on 24 Oct 1999:
>david ford:
>df Would you agree with my contention that the number of
>df known neutral and known deleterious mutations is
>df overwhelmingly greater than the number of beneficial
>df mutations, i.e., (N + D) >> B ?
>NR I'm not sure why you find this interesting or significant. If a
>NR species is well adapted, we should expect that most mutations
>NR would be neutral or deleterious. If we found a species in
>NR which most mutations were beneficial, that would be evidence
>NR that the species is poorly adapted to its present environment.
>What you mean by [NR]"well adapted" and [NR]"poorly adapted"?
Perhaps there is no formal definition of the terms. I think the
meaning is clear enough. (Most natural language expression is not
formally definable).
>Ehrlich, Paul R. and Richard W. Holm. "Patterns and Populations"
>_Science_ 137: 652-7 (1962). On 656:
> Few nonevolutionists realize that the term _adaptation_ is one
> of the least understood and most misused in population biology.
I don't believe I was misusing the term. If you disagree, then be
explicit in your objections.
david ford
(London: Edward Arnold & Co.), 192pp. On 67-9:
The theory of the gradual origin of every new type involves
a number of transformations that are apparently
physiologically or mechanically impossible.
Let us notice two or three of these.
1. The gradual transformation of an Amphibian into a
Reptile.
In this connexion I take the liberty of quoting from a paper
contributed by Dr. J. Needham to _Science Progress_ (1929),
Vol. 23, p. 63:
"When the first reptiles left the sea, they were faced with
two very difficult embryological problems. To begin with,
they had to find out how to abandon metamorphosis; but, that
accomplished, they had to discover a way of arranging a
water-supply for their embryos. As Gray has shown, aquatic
embryos always depend on their environment for a supply of
water; in other words, the fertilized egg contains enough
solid but not enough water to make the finished larva. The
first terrestrial eggs, therefore, had to contain enough
water as well as enough solid, and, as arrangements to
prevent undue evaporation were essential, the closed-box
system (i.e. the encasing of the egg in a hard shell)
inevitably developed. The mechanism by which a constant
pressure head of water was provided in the terrestrial eggs,
namely egg-white, can be seen functioning at the present
time in the as yet unidentified acid which, introduced by
the embryo's metabolism into the egg-white, as Vladimirow
has shown, gradually brings the latter to its isoelectric
points and liberates water by degrees from the colloidal
albumen. All the economy of the successful terrestrial egg
had to be directed towards conserving the water, and, while
a great bath would have been required to keep the urea
concentration down within bearable limits if all the
nitrogen was secreted in that form, only 20 per cent. of the
water need be set aside for handling uric acid."
Before, then, the habit of depositing eggs in water could be
changed to that of laying them on the dry land, the
following alterations in the egg had to be made: the
formation of a tough shell to prevent evaporation of the
liquid contents of the egg and to protect them from
predacious creatures; the secretion of an acid to cause the
white of egg to yield its water as required; a change in the
metabolism (chemical changes in animals) of the embryo
whereby the waste products take the form of insoluble uric
acid instead of soluble urea; the introduction of a quantity
of yolk to enable the embryo to remain in the egg until it
reached a stage when it was able to fend for itself on land;
the development of two special embryonic membranes-- the
amnion and allantois-- to protect the embryo, enable it to
breathe, and act as a reservoir of the waste products
resulting from its metabolism; the development of a tooth in
the embryo with which to break the hard shell of the egg.
Moreover, fertilization of the egg as soon as the shell
evolved, had to take place within the female before the
shell began to harden, necessitating changes in the
uro-genital organs and habits of the adult.
Most, if not all, the above changes would be useless, or
even harmful, until they were more or less complete; what,
then, can have not only inaugurated them but caused them to
continue until the transformation of an aquatic into a
terrestrial egg was completed? The process, if gradual,
must have taken a very long time, and how did the embryos
contrive to survive during this long period of transition?
It is necessary never to lose sight of the fact that, while
all the transformations postulated by the doctrine of
evolution were being effected, the creatures being
transformed, their eggs and their young had to live and
compete with other organisms.
2. The gradual transformation of a Reptile into a Bird.
....
Koestler, Arthur. 1978. _Janus: A Summing Up_ (NY: Vintage
Books), 354pp. On 175-6:
To conclude this section, here is a less dramatic example of
an evolutionary advance-- the seemingly modest step which
led to the transformation of the amphibian egg into the
reptilian egg. I have described this process in _The Ghost
in the Machine_, and am quoting it again, because its
explanation by the Darwinian schema is not only vastly
improbable, but logically impossible.
The vertebrates' conquest of dry land started with the
evolution of reptiles from some primitive amphibian form.
The amphibians reproduced in the water, and their young
were aquatic. The decisive novelty of the reptiles was
that, unlike amphibians, they laid their eggs on dry
land; they no longer depended on the water and were free
to roam over the continents. But the unborn reptile
inside the egg still needed an aquatic environment: it
had to have water or else it would dry up at an early
stage. It also needed a lot of food: amphibians hatch
as larvae who fend for themselves, whereas reptiles hatch
fully developed. So the reptilian egg had to be provided
with a large mass of yolk for food, and also with
albumen-- the white of egg-- to provide the water.
Neither the yolk by itself, nor the egg-white itself,
would have had any selective value. Moreover, the
egg-white needed a vessel to contain it, otherwise its
moisture would have evaporated. So there had to be a
shell made of a leathery or limey material, as part of
the evolutionary package-deal. But that is not the end
of the story. The reptilian embryo, because of this
shell, could not get rid of its waste products. The
soft-shelled amphibian embryo had the whole pond as a
lavatory; the reptilian embryo had to be provided with a
kind of bladder. It is called the allantois, and is in
some respects the forerunner of the mammalian placenta.
But this problem having been solved, the embryo would
still remain trapped inside its tough shell; it needed a
tool to get out. The embryos of some fishes and
amphibians, whose eggs are surrounded by a gelatinous
membrane, have glands on their snouts: when the time is
ripe, they secrete a chemical which dissolves the
membrane. But embryos surrounded by a hard shell need a
mechanical tool: thus snakes and lizards have a tooth
transformed into a kind of tin-opener, while birds have a
caruncle-- a hard outgrowth near the tip of their beaks
which serves the same purpose, and is later shed by the
adult animal.^27
Now according to the Darwinian schema, all these changes
must have been gradual, each small step caused by a chance
mutation. But it is obvious that each step, however small,
required simultaneous, interdependent changes affecting
_all_ the factors involved in the story. Thus the liquid
store in the albumen could not be kept in the egg without
the hard shell. But the shell would be useless, in fact
murderous, without the allantois and without the tin-opener.
Each of these changes, if they had occurred alone, would
have been harmful, and the organisms thus affected would
have been weeded out by natural selection (or rather, as
suggested above, by 'natural elimination'). You cannot have
an isolated mutation A, preserve it over an incalculable
number of generations until mutation B occurs in the same
lineage and so on to C and D. Each single mutation would be
wiped off the slate before it could be combined with all the
others. They are all interdependent within the organism--
which is a functional whole, and not a mosaic. The doctrine
that the coming together of all requisite changes was due to
a series of coincidences is an affront not only to common
sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation.
....
wf...@ptd.net
>Dewar, Douglas. 1931. _Difficulties of the Evolution Theory_
>(London: Edward Arnold & Co.), 192pp. On 67-9:
> The theory of the gradual origin of every new type involves
> a number of transformations that are apparently
> physiologically or mechanically impossible.
> Let us notice two or three of these.
geez, how nice. a paper older than i am. nice to have dave bring us up
to date with creationist views of science
>
> 1. The gradual transformation of an Amphibian into a
> Reptile.
> In this connexion I take the liberty of quoting from a paper
> contributed by Dr. J. Needham to _Science Progress_ (1929),
> Vol. 23, p. 63:
perhaps my grandfather would have read this paper...when he was a
kid...
>
> 2. The gradual transformation of a Reptile into a Bird.
> ....
>
The doctrine
> that the coming together of all requisite changes was due to
> a series of coincidences is an affront not only to common
> sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation.
> ....
nice of dave to present a paper only a quarter of a century old, and
to quote it out of context.
he sure's convinced me. i guess now he'll tell us why quantum
mechanics is wrong by quoting the 'principia mathematica'...after all,
thats 300 yrs old
thanks dave!
>
zOz
[snip]
This is only one of some counterarguments, each alone strong
enough to refute neo-Darwinism. Here another variant of the
same argument:
Many animals hibernate. Hibernation is a complex phenomenon
consisting of various components, from cellular metabolic
processes to several behaviour patterns. These components are
linked together only insofar as they serve to the same purpose.
Therefore we can exclude that mutations responsible for one
component of hibernation enable all the other components
besides. (That a single mutation may switch on or off all the
components is a different problem.) DNA mutations which cause
animals to build a usable nest just at the right time must have
some complexity. Even under the completely unrealistic
assumption that four point mutations are enough to cause such
a behaviour, the appearance of exactly these mutations is
extremly improbable. If yet the appearance of one single
component of hibernation is extremly improbable, then we can
exclude that all components might have evolved only by genetic
mutations. Nevertheless, hibernation evolved independently in
many species. http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a03
So because neo-Darwinism represents no longer a theory which
can be taken seriously as THE explanation of evolution, we must
either create more realistic and consistent evolution theories
or we accept some form of creationism.
Cheers, Wolfgang
The only essentially consistent evolution theory I know of:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html
* Materialistic evolution theories are essentially
* SUPER-CREATION or HYPER-DESIGN theories: the universe
* was hyper-designed and super-created in such a complex
* way that blind downhill processes can design and
* create whole ecosystems.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>So because neo-Darwinism represents no longer a theory which
>can be taken seriously as THE explanation of evolution, we must
>either create more realistic and consistent evolution theories
>or we accept some form of creationism.
>
what a meaningless statement. even if evolution is wrong, that does
not mean creationism is right. creationism, since it says nothing at
all about the physical world which has meaning, is not science.
The Termite of Temptation
out of the water, so it doesn't need to evolve alongside anything else. Say
that this evolved first. Then as amphibians laid their eggs out of water or
PARTIALLY out of water the need for a water supply became more beneficial.
Remember, it is totally plausible, with so many eggs, for some to be laid in
and some out. Thus any SMALL tendency for a water supply to be provided is
an evolutionary advantage. Perhaps this water supply was included by
including a thin membrane around the egg.
Evaporation - many amphibians, such as turtles, bury their eggs or lay them
in the shade. This is a perfectly natural behaviour, as it is necessary
underwater too to protect from predators. The shade protects these
proto-eggs, without their shells, from the worst effects of evaporation.
Granted, some will not make it, but this is always the case with amphibians.
Also, since they are laid in bunches, the inner ones or ones on the bottom
layer will be protected by the outer ones. However, the addition of a hard
leathery shell GRADUALLY increases the resistance of the eggs to
evaporation.
Since the hard shell is getting gradually harder, it is easy for the
youngling to pierce without special equipment in this early form. The young
animal evolves a gradually more sophisticated device to pierce the gradually
tougher shell.
As this occurs, the cost of producing eggs becomes greater but more survive
as a percentage. Thus the amphibian begins to produce less.
Also, hibernation time is continuous. All animals find a warm place to sleep
at night if they can. As hibernation length GRADUALLY increases, it is
natural that preparation for such a sleep would be more cost-effective. This
would gradually lead to more elaborate nest-building, and these two
variables could simply increase in tandem without any need for an
evolutionary leap.
This is only an attempt at an answer. I welcome any criticism or outright
denials, but I think the best explanation here is that all the variables
mentioned here - protein supply, water supply, shell thickness, beak
strength, hibernation length, preparation time - they are all continuous.
None are useless without the others, but they complement each other, so it
is natural that they evolve together.
Concluding that these two rather dodgy examples invalidate Darwinism is just
silly. Concluding that they validate Creationism is even sillier.
Duncan
mel turner
wrote...
>
>OK, here's an explanation that works. The protein is necessary whether in or
>out of the water, so it doesn't need to evolve alongside anything else. Say
>that this evolved first. Then as amphibians laid their eggs out of water or
>PARTIALLY out of water the need for a water supply became more beneficial.
There are plenty of analogous cases today of several different types
of modern amphibians [species in all three major modern groups of
living amphibians] that do lay their eggs in sheltered moist places
out of water. For that matter, modern egg-laying reptiles also lay
their eggs in moist places.
>Remember, it is totally plausible, with so many eggs, for some to be laid in
>and some out.
Or, one can posit a transitional stage with eggs laid in damp nests
near the water [or not, if an aquatic larval stage is omitted].
Again, modern examples do exist.
>Thus any SMALL tendency for a water supply to be provided is
>an evolutionary advantage. Perhaps this water supply was included by
>including a thin membrane around the egg.
>
>Evaporation - many amphibians, such as turtles, bury their eggs or lay them
>in the shade.
Turtles are reptiles, and lay shelled eggs. But that's a good point;
most amniotes still lay their eggs in nests in moist places. Reptile
eggs still have to be kept fairly damp or they'll fail.
>This is a perfectly natural behaviour, as it is necessary
>underwater too to protect from predators. The shade protects these
>proto-eggs, without their shells, from the worst effects of evaporation.
Besides shade, how about laying them in a hole in moist ground or
other protected nest? Some modern amphibians do this.
>Granted, some will not make it, but this is always the case with amphibians.
>Also, since they are laid in bunches, the inner ones or ones on the bottom
>layer will be protected by the outer ones. However, the addition of a hard
>leathery shell GRADUALLY increases the resistance of the eggs to
>evaporation.
Or, the secretion of a simple, thin shell might be expected as an
early stage in the evolution of a thicker, more elaborate one.
Modern amniotes do vary a lot in eggshells.
>Since the hard shell is getting gradually harder, it is easy for the
>youngling to pierce without special equipment in this early form. The young
>animal evolves a gradually more sophisticated device to pierce the gradually
>tougher shell.
It's noteworthy that the structures involved differ among reptile
groups. The egg tooth of lizards and snakes is a modified tooth;
the caruncle of turtles is a keratinized bump on the snout...
[snip]
>Also, hibernation time is continuous. All animals find a warm place to sleep
>at night if they can. As hibernation length GRADUALLY increases, it is
>natural that preparation for such a sleep would be more cost-effective. This
>would gradually lead to more elaborate nest-building, and these two
>variables could simply increase in tandem without any need for an
>evolutionary leap.
Especially since ancestral species might live in mild-climate regions
adjacent to the places where a capacity for prolonged dormancy is
critical. It's easy to imagine gradual series of in-between
environments for the in-between stages in the evolution of expert
hibernators.
[snip]
cheers
zOz
[snip]
| Also, hibernation time is continuous. All animals find a warm place
| to sleep at night if they can. As hibernation length GRADUALLY
| increases, it is natural that preparation for such a sleep would be
| more cost-effective. This would gradually lead to more elaborate
| nest-building, and these two variables could simply increase in
| tandem without any need for an evolutionary leap.
|
| This is only an attempt at an answer. I welcome any criticism or
| outright denials, but I think the best explanation here is that all
| the variables mentioned here - protein supply, water supply, shell
| thickness, beak strength, hibernation length, preparation time -
| they are all continuous. None are useless without the others, but
| they complement each other, so it is natural that they evolve
| together.
|
| Concluding that these two rather dodgy examples invalidate
| Darwinism is just silly. Concluding that they validate Creationism
| is even sillier.
The question at issue is not whether gradual transitions are
conceivable (and existent), but whether they can be explained
by the assumption that they are caused by random mutations.
Take the case of humans after their separation from chimps some
million years ago. An upper limit to the number of individuals
having been born since then is 10^16 (i.e. 10^9 newborns per
year for 10^7 years).
10^16 is an extremely small number when compared with the number
of possible mutations in the genetic code. Let us assume that
the number of relevant base pairs (i.e. without junk DNA) is
100'000'000 pairs per chromosome set. This results in three
hundred million possible point-replacement mutations (because
every base pair can be replaced by three alternatives).
The number of possible combinations of two such point mutations
is already 10^17, i.e. higher than the number of all "humans"
ever born since our separation from chimps. The number of
all possible single-step mutations is even much higher than
the number of point-replacement mutations.
So evolutionary advantages depending on two or more single-step
mutations cannot have had a relevant impact (at least for human
evolution). If we believe in neo-Darwinism we must assume that
every innovation is produced by a sequence of single-step
mutations, each of which alone responsible for a relevant
increase in fitness.
Once again Arthur Koestler:
' You cannot have
' an isolated mutation A, preserve it over an incalculable
' number of generations until mutation B occurs in the same
' lineage and so on to C and D. Each single mutation would be
' wiped off the slate before it could be combined with all the
' others. They are all interdependent within the organism--
' which is a functional whole, and not a mosaic. The doctrine
' that the coming together of all requisite changes was due to
' a series of coincidences is an affront not only to common
' sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation.
A further quote from the "The Psychon theory":
Living beings never could adapt so promptly to new conditions
(e.g. climatic changes), if corresponding (dominant) mutations
had to appear at first. The spread of the ability of adults to
make use of lactose has paralleled the spread of dairy farming.
The advantage of this ability is certainly not big enough to
explain its wide spead in only a few thousands years by
selection.
See also (especially the last two contributions):
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/deja4.html
Wolfgang Gottfried G.
lenny
news:8vefk8$ugk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Take the case of humans after their separation from chimps some
> million years ago. An upper limit to the number of individuals
> having been born since then is 10^16 (i.e. 10^9 newborns per
> year for 10^7 years).
>
> 10^16 is an extremely small number when compared with the number
> of possible mutations in the genetic code. Let us assume that
> the number of relevant base pairs (i.e. without junk DNA) is
> 100'000'000 pairs per chromosome set. This results in three
> hundred million possible point-replacement mutations (because
> every base pair can be replaced by three alternatives).
>
> The number of possible combinations of two such point mutations
> is already 10^17, i.e. higher than the number of all "humans"
> ever born since our separation from chimps. The number of
> all possible single-step mutations is even much higher than
> the number of point-replacement mutations.
Why on earth would you limit the number of mutations to the number of
individuals born? A great many (possibly most) mutations are likely so
devastating that they lead to spontaneous abortion of the fetus. The number
of individuals born places a limit only on the number of mutations that were
not so traumatic that they prevented development to parturition, and that
screws up your math.
zOz
> = lenny
>> = Wolfgang G. in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=696263335
We are dealing with the frequent case where evolutionary progress
requires simultaneous, interdependent changes of more than one
single genetic factor.
Let us assume that three factors must be affected for an increase
in fitness to emerge. So even if the probability of a beneficial
mutation in a newborn were as high as 10^-5 for each factor,
the probability that beneficial mutations occur for all three
factors is 10^-15, i.e. extremely improbable.
So neo-Darwinism requires essentially this hypothesis:
Every evolutionary innovation can produced by a sequence
of single-step mutations, each of which alone responsible
for a relevant increase in fitness.
Because this hypothesis is obviously wrong, neo-Darwinism
is refuted.
If we take into account that many properties depending each
on more than one single genetic factor must evolve at the
same time, it becomes even more obvious that the neo-Darwinian
explanation of evolution is simply untenable.
Wolfgang Gottfried G.
My alternative to neo-Darwinism:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
lenny
> > Why on earth would you limit the number of mutations to the number
> > of individuals born? A great many (possibly most) mutations are
> > likely so devastating that they lead to spontaneous abortion of
> > the fetus. The number of individuals born places a limit only
> > on the number of mutations that were not so traumatic that they
> > prevented development to parturition, and that screws up your
> > math.
>
> We are dealing with the frequent case where evolutionary progress
> requires simultaneous, interdependent changes of more than one
> single genetic factor.
What does that mean in English? What the hell does 'single genetic factor'
mean, for instance? Evolution requires the change of relative frequencies
of alleles. It requires variation, and the ultimate source of that
variation is mutation, but that doesn't mean that evolution is strongly
constrained by the rate of mutation since there is generally already plenty
of heritable variation in any population for evolution to work on at any
given time.
> Let us assume that three factors must be affected for an increase
> in fitness to emerge.
Lets not assume anything of the sort until you explain what you are talking
about and offer some evidence that it's true.
So even if the probability of a beneficial
> mutation in a newborn were as high as 10^-5 for each factor,
> the probability that beneficial mutations occur for all three
> factors is 10^-15, i.e. extremely improbable.
The problem is not your math, it's your assumptions, based on a lack of
knowledge of what the theory actually states and what is actually observd to
happen. Genetic variability doesn't just come from mutation, it also comes
from recombination. There is a great deal of variation already available in
any species--many traits are polygenic and there are already multiple
alleles at each locus. When we apply artificial seletion to a domestic
species we don't have to wait a million years for a suitable mutation to
occur, there is already plenty there to work with. Natural selection works
with the same sort of variation.
david ford
Scientist_, 484-6. Brace is/was with the Museum of Anthropology
at the University of Michigan. He reviews _Species, Species
Concepts, and Primate Evolution_ (1993), William Kimbel and
Lawrence Martin, eds. The first paragraph:
Readers of _American Scientist_ may not realize the extent
to which a major part of the field of paleontology and
almost all of paleoanthropology has rejected Darwin's
insights concerning organic evolution. Natural selection is
dismissed as contributing nothing more than "fine-tuning,"
and adaptation is largely ignored in practice. To be sure,
not all of the representatives of those fields have followed
suit. William Kimbel and Lawrence Martin have put together
a volume that faithfully represents the state of the art--
although, in that representation there is no inkling of how
the "art" came to be so far out of step with contemporary
evolutionary biology. Their field is clearly marching to
the beat of a different drummer, who is never identified.
Buried in the miasma of wordy obfuscation, however, is an
evident perpetuation of the opposition to Darwin voiced by
Louis Agassiz in 1860 when he asserted that species are
changeless entities reflecting thoughts in the mind of God.
david ford
_The Evolution of Life_, 349-80, Sol Tax, ed. The first two
sentences:
There are fashionable problems and there are neglected
problems in any field of research. The problem of the
emergence of evolutionary novelties has undoubtedly been
greatly neglected during the past two or three decades, in
spite of its importance in the theory of evolution.
Padian, Kevin. 1989. Book review "The Whole Real Guts of
Evolution?" _Paleobiology_ 15:73-8. Padian was/is with the
Department of Paleontology at the University of California, in
Berkeley. He reviews Jeffrey Levinton's _Genetics, Paleontology,
and Macroevolution_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988), 637pp. On 77, two paragraphs:
Even on his own terms, Levinton has missed the process of
macroevolution as he defines it. In supporting the
conventional extrapolationist view of evolution, he excludes
a lot of problems that simply have no counterpart in the
orthodox literature of the Modern Synthesis. How do major
evolutionary changes get started? Does anyone still believe
that populations sit around for tens of thousands of years,
waiting for favorable mutations to occur (and just how does
that happen, by the way?), then anxiously guard them until
enough accumulate for selection to push the population
toward new and useful change? There you have the
mathematical arguments of neodarwinism that Waddington and
others rightly characterized as "vacuous." The attention is
on the gauges, not on the machinery. For example, the soles
of the human feet and the ventral callosities of the ostrich
begin to thicken before birth; how did the response first
engendered by post-natal wear become anticipatory, captured
by the genome? What is the interplay between morphogenesis
and genetics, and how does an organism's phenotypic behavior
translate through developmental change into the hereditary
program? If feathers did not evolve "for" flight, of what
use is a neodarwinian explanation that demonstrates that
they could evolve gradually from scales? What does that
explain?
I would like to see a new evolutionary synthesis that
approaches questions of how morphogenesis constructs new
features, and how it does it so well, so often, and so
quickly. If phenotypic variations are stimulated by genetic
mutations, how does the mutation interact with the
morphogenetic program (which is clearly, as Levinton
recognizes, predominantly historical and mechanical in its
constraints) to generate appropriate and useful changes?
What is the role of behavior in all this, particularly in
complex metazoans, and how can we make "development" more
than a black box in morphogenetic evolution? The writings
of Waddington, of Riedl, of Frazzetta, and of Rachootin and
Thomson posed many of these same questions, but the quest
for their answers has not yet become a major part of the
evolutionary research program. There is still too much we
don't' [sic] know, and it is easier to focus on problems
similar to those we have successfully solved in the past.
wf...@ptd.net
>Mayr, Ernst. 1960. "The Emergence of Evolutionary Novelties" in
>_The Evolution of Life_, 349-80, Sol Tax, ed. The first two
>sentences:
> There are fashionable problems and there are neglected
> problems in any field of research.
res ipso loquitur.
creationists think this problem is unique to evolutionary biology
WickedDyno
<wissensch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<s>
> Every evolutionary innovation can produced by a sequence
> of single-step mutations, each of which alone responsible
> for a relevant increase in fitness.
>
>Because this hypothesis is obviously wrong, neo-Darwinism
>is refuted.
It is not obviously wrong.
There are more things in heaven and earth, zoz, than are written of in
your Bible.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <am...@cornell.edu> |
|"'Cause you took the peace and love from the Rock |
| And turned it into sand. . ." -- Zeeza |
Christopher A. Lee
Ford is either incredibly stupid or a deliberate liar - or most
likely both. He has been spouting his ignorance for years, ignoring
what he is told in an attempt to educate him. He'll disappear for a
while and then come back repeating what he knows is wrong by now.
Dunk
turner) wrote:
>There are plenty of analogous cases today of several different types
>of modern amphibians [species in all three major modern groups of
>living amphibians] that do lay their eggs in sheltered moist places
>out of water. For that matter, modern egg-laying reptiles also lay
>their eggs in moist places.
Sundry frogs and snails lay their eggs on vegatation overhanging
water, but out in the open. They do not experience the difficulties
of the imaginary scenario, and represent the kind of intermediate egg
that the scenario implies is not possible.
>Or, one can posit a transitional stage with eggs laid in damp nests
>near the water [or not, if an aquatic larval stage is omitted].
>Again, modern examples do exist.
>....
>Especially since ancestral species might live in mild-climate regions
>adjacent to the places where a capacity for prolonged dormancy is
>critical. It's easy to imagine gradual series of in-between
>environments for the in-between stages in the evolution of expert
>hibernators.
Animals wake up from time to time during hibernation, and some
individual bears skip hibernation some winters. (This last according
to a magazine, not a journal. I think it 's black bears).
Dunk
mel turner
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote...
>Wiley, E.O. 1975. Book review. _Systematic Zoology_ 24:269-70.
>Wiley was/is with the Department of Ichthyology at the American
>Museum of Natural History, and with the City University of New
>York. He reviews Norman Macbeth's excellent _Darwin Retried_
>(1971). Most of the first paragraph, and also the last
>paragraph:
[snipped]
So, do you recommend wearing a hard hat with a lamp when
digging in the quote mine?
cheers
WickedDyno
(Dunk) wrote:
Bears don't actually hibernate; they just sleep a lot.
david ford
Wiley was/is with the Department of Ichthyology at the American
Museum of Natural History, and with the City University of New
York. He reviews Norman Macbeth's excellent _Darwin Retried_
(1971). Most of the first paragraph, and also the last
paragraph:
dead and the general public should be made aware of its
death. Like Macbeth, I decided to examine this in
conversation with my non-biologist friends. Like Macbeth, I
found that most of my friends were unaware of the fate of
classical Darwinism. Further, they were unaware of any
controversy regarding evolutionary theory among biologists.
What struck me most was that my friends were really
interested in the subject, and I conclude that evolution
still holds a certain fascination for the general public.
But, if the refutation of classical Darwinism is no surprise
to biologists, why should Macbeth's book be of interest to
them? It is, first, compact and lucidly written, a delight
to read. It is, also, a synthesis of controversies
concerning evolutionary theories written by an admittedly
anti-Darwinian evolutionist outside the profession of
biology. As such the book deserves to be read by those of
us who teach our scientific theories and myths to new
generations of biologists. I recommend it also to students,
who might thereby learn that science is not monolithic, that
controversy can still rage, that evolutionary theory is
still interesting. ....
In the chapter "Must We Explain? Must We Defend?" Macbeth
suggests that we try to look at evolution with new eyes,
that we admit to the public, and, if needed, to ourselves,
that we have misgivings about Darwinism and the synthetic
theory, that we open debate. I think these are excellent
suggestions.
Landis D. Ragon
>
<snip>
>>
>
>Bears don't actually hibernate; they just sleep a lot.
Well, how about that! I'm a bear!
--
Landis Ragon (dS = dq/T)
Chief Elf in the Toy Factory.
"I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!"
-- Gilbert and Sullivan : "The Mikado"
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>We are dealing with the frequent case where evolutionary progress
>requires simultaneous, interdependent changes of more than one
>single genetic factor.
There's no such case. A single change may lie dormant for
generations, until joined by a second and, later, a third. Then, when
the environment changes, the individuals with the 3 changes are the
ones most fit.
>Let us assume that three factors must be affected for an increase
>in fitness to emerge.
The cart doesn't cause the horse to move. 'Fitness' is driven by
environment, not by evolution.
>Because this hypothesis is obviously wrong, neo-Darwinism
>is refuted.
Because your incorrect assumptions are incorrect, ND is refuted? Not
even close.
>If we take into account that many properties depending each
>on more than one single genetic factor must evolve at the
>same time
See above.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
David B. Greene
>zOz <wissensch...@my-deja.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>We are dealing with the frequent case where evolutionary progress
>>requires simultaneous, interdependent changes of more than one
>>single genetic factor.
>
>There's no such case.
Really!?!?! Sounds like a whacky statement to me. Under the
current paradigms of evolution this could happen a lot. While
it does not have to be the case it cannot be ruled out either.
> A single change may lie dormant for
>generations, until joined by a second and, later, a third. Then, when
>the environment changes, the individuals with the 3 changes are the
>ones most fit.
This could certainly happen but it is no argument against
the previous poster,s position. And the environment is
often changing in a dynamic way even though the episodic
change you mention is also possible.
>>Let us assume that three factors must be affected for an increase
>>in fitness to emerge.
>
>The cart doesn't cause the horse to move. 'Fitness' is driven by
>environment, not by evolution.
This is faith. It may be the case that evolution drives
some fitness as does the environment. I've seen no PRL
that indicates evolution cannot drive fitness.
>>Because this hypothesis is obviously wrong, neo-Darwinism
>>is refuted.
>
>Because your incorrect assumptions are incorrect, ND is refuted? Not
>even close.
Neo-Darwinism is not refuted by his arguments but his
arguments, which are refutable, are not refuted by
your's ... sorry.
Dave Greene
Bethzur
David B. Greene <da...@alumni.XOUT.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:3a21973...@news.u.washington.edu...
I'm sorry but your arguments are a load of rubbish.
There is no such thing as Evolution!!!!!!!
Darwin was wrong and admitted as much in his later life.
John Wilkins
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... Lady Hope and her amazing and
irrelevant hoax!
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production, The Walter and Eliza Hall
Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
plu...@freemail.nl
wrote:
Daniel writes:
This is the classis mistake people trying to refute Darwinism make:
Because hypotheses A, B, and X are wrong, the whole of evolutionary
theory is wrong. Evolution theory is a paradigm, a way of thinking
about biological and origins that is supported by enough evidence,
direct and indirect, that 'proving' one or more hypotheses and even
theories wrong cannot just disprove the whole paradigm.
It would be analogous to saying that the whole paradigm of medical
knowledge about human anatonomy is disproven because an anatomist got
some or other detail worng about the human eye, which would be
laughable. Such an analogy is NOT an exagerration.
Christians, believing that their whole system must hang together
absolutely, being a religion where if even one element (eg the virgin
birth) is proven wrong then the whole religion falls apart - as usual,
think everyone must follow the same logic as them. This is just not
the case.
Cheers, Daniel.
WickedDyno
<peter....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >Because your incorrect assumptions are incorrect, ND is refuted? Not
> > >even close.
> >
> > Neo-Darwinism is not refuted by his arguments but his
> > arguments, which are refutable, are not refuted by
> > your's ... sorry.
> >
> > Dave Greene
>
> I'm sorry but your arguments are a load of rubbish.
>
> There is no such thing as Evolution!!!!!!!
Who advanced the principle that the more exclamation points following a
statement, the less likely it was to be meaningful?
> Darwin was wrong and admitted as much in his later life.
Wrong. <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html>
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
John Wilkins
"Multiple exclamation points. A sure sign of a sick mind." Rincewind in
_Eric_, by Terry Pratchett.
>
> > Darwin was wrong and admitted as much in his later life.
>
> Wrong. <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html>
--
david ford
Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong_ (Washington,
DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.), 338pp. The table of contents:
Preface
Introduction
The Miller-Urey Experiment
Darwin's Tree of Life
Homology in Vertebrate Limbs
Haeckel's Embryos
_Archaeopteryx_--The Missing Link
Peppered Moths
Darwin's Finches
Four-Winged Fruit Flies
Fossil Horses and Directed Evolution
From Ape to Human: The Ultimate Icon
Science or Myth?
Appendix I An Evaluation of Ten Recent Biology Textbooks
Appendix II Suggested Warning Labels for Biology Textbooks
Research Notes
Index
I ordered my copy from http://www.arn.org
The last paragraph of the Introduction:
The following chapters compare the icons of evolution with
published scientific evidence, and reveal that much of what
we teach about evolution is wrong. This fact raises
troubling questions about the status of Darwinian evolution.
If the icons of evolution are supposed to be our best
evidence for Darwin's theory, and all of them are false or
misleading, what does that tell us about the theory? Is it
science, or myth?
PZ
wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
He's even two over the canonical five...
> >
> > > Darwin was wrong and admitted as much in his later life.
> >
> > Wrong. <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html>
I fear poor Lady Hope is now suffering in the eighth circle of hell, and
probably has a very prominent place given how well her lie has been
adopted in this past century.
--
pz
wf...@ptd.net
yawn...so much ado about so little. more god of the gaps. more 'we
dont know all the answers, so the answers we DO have are false, and
god actually did it'
yadda yadda yadda.
Aron-Ra
Funny, that's not what his wife said.
"I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his
last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in
any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or
belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or
earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the
U.S.A. ... The whole story has no foundation whatever."
[Henrietta Darwin, on her father's alleged 'conversion', 1922
Aron-Ra
rogue
wrote:
>Bethzur <peter....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> I'm sorry but your arguments are a load of rubbish.
>>
>> There is no such thing as Evolution!!!!!!!
>>
>> Darwin was wrong and admitted as much in his later life.
>JOHN WILKINS
>Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... Lady Hope and her amazing and
>irrelevant hoax!
JERRY
That's Peter. He comes back periodically to preach a little and when
confronted with the failures of the bible, and unable to refute what
he is presented with, he leaves for a bit then comes back when he
thinks that the group has changed enough that they won't remember him,
or he uses a different nick, such as Bethzur.
Peter, I'm still waiting for you to show me why Tim Taylor is wrong on
the Parousia being supposed to happen during Jesus's lifetime. I'm
also still waiting on you to show why the Bible isn't wrong when it
prophesies the total destruction of Tyre. Oh, and while you are at
it, please show why Matthew 12:40 didn't fail when Jesus said he would
be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights, but then
was in the earth for only 2 nights.
If you like, Peter, I can go into the archives and dig up all the
things you have failed to respond to and repost them here so that any
lurking xtians can see how inadequate your explanations and
rationalizations are.
rob
rogue wrote in message <3a228d1d...@news.earthlink.net>...
>JERRY
>That's Peter. He comes back periodically to preach a little and when
>confronted with the failures of the bible, and unable to refute what
>he is presented with, he leaves for a bit then comes back when he
>thinks that the group has changed enough that they won't remember him,
>or he uses a different nick, such as Bethzur.
Hey, so it's our old friend Peter Legge, with whom I've had such
entertaining exchanges in the past. He seemed halfway reasonable during the
first few exchanges I had with him, but he seems to have reverted to the
"standard model YEC type" from then on in. He certanly doesn't seemto have
taking my advice to go away and educate himself before posting drivel!
Rob
zOz
|| = Wolfgang G.
|| We are dealing with the frequent case where evolutionary progress
|| requires simultaneous, interdependent changes of more than one
|| single genetic factor.
|
| There's no such case. A single change may lie dormant for
| generations, until joined by a second and, later, a third. Then,
| when the environment changes, the individuals with the 3 changes
| are the ones most fit.
The upright gait was only one of many traits which had to evolve
in us after our separation from chimps. For that to happen, the
structures of bones, of muscules and of tendons had to gradually
change. Let us ignore that in fact the bone structure (involved
in the upright-gait evolution) alone consists of several bones
with each several traits.
So let us make the completely unrealistic assumption that one
'progressive' single-step mutation in the genetic factor of each
(i.e. bone, muscle and tendon) structure is enough to entail
a relevant increase in fitness.
Let us further assume that the probability of such progressive
mutations in newborns is each as high as 10^-5. So we conclude
that among 10^15 newborns (i.e. a billion newborns of a million
generations), only one indivudual will carry all three
necessary mutations.
Because a change in only one or two of the three involved
structures cannot lead to a relevant increase in fitness (rather
the contrary), it becomes obvious that the upright gait cannot
have evolved in a neo-Darwinian way.
Wolfgang Gottfried G.
My previous posts of this tread:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=695872517
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=696263335
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=696878814
Confusing the origin of HIV:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=686210184
WickedDyno
wrote:
> In article <8vs8tl$2oo$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> "Bethzur" <peter....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > David B. Greene <da...@alumni.XOUT.washington.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3a21973...@news.u.washington.edu...
> > > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
> > > >zOz <wissensch...@my-deja.com> posted in alt.atheism:
> > > >
> > > >>We are dealing with the frequent case where evolutionary progress
> > > >>requires simultaneous, interdependent changes of more than one
> > > >>single genetic factor.
> > > >
> > > >There's no such case.
> > >
> > > Really!?!?! Sounds like a whacky statement to me. Under the
> > > current paradigms of evolution this could happen a lot. While
> > > it does not have to be the case it cannot be ruled out either.
> > >
> > > > A single change may lie dormant for
> > > >generations, until joined by a second and, later, a third. Then,
> when
> > > >the environment changes, the individuals with the 3 changes are the
> > > >ones most fit.
> > >
> > > This could certainly happen but it is no argument against
> > > the previous poster,s position. And the environment is
> > > often changing in a dynamic way even though the episodic
> > > change you mention is also possible.
> > >
> > > >>Let us assume that three factors must be affected for an increase
> > > >>in fitness to emerge.
> > > >
> > > >The cart doesn't cause the horse to move. 'Fitness' is driven by
> > > >environment, not by evolution.
> > >
> > > This is faith. It may be the case that evolution drives
> > > some fitness as does the environment. I've seen no PRL
> > > that indicates evolution cannot drive fitness.
> > >
> > > >>Because this hypothesis is obviously wrong, neo-Darwinism
> > > >>is refuted.
> > > >
> > > >Because your incorrect assumptions are incorrect, ND is refuted?
> Not
> > > >even close.
> > >
> > > Neo-Darwinism is not refuted by his arguments but his
> > > arguments, which are refutable, are not refuted by
> > > your's ... sorry.
> > >
> > > Dave Greene
> >
> > I'm sorry but your arguments are a load of rubbish.
> >
> > There is no such thing as Evolution!!!!!!!
> >
> > Darwin was wrong and admitted as much in his later life.
>
> Funny, that's not what his wife said.
>
> "I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his
> last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in
> any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or
> belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or
> earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the
> U.S.A. ... The whole story has no foundation whatever."
> [Henrietta Darwin, on her father's alleged 'conversion', 1922
s/wife/daughter/, no?
Puck Greenman
>
>David B. Greene <da...@alumni.XOUT.washington.edu> wrote in message
>news:3a21973...@news.u.washington.edu...
>> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>> >zOz <wissensch...@my-deja.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>> >
>> Neo-Darwinism is not refuted by his arguments but his
>> arguments, which are refutable, are not refuted by
>> your's ... sorry.
>>
>> Dave Greene
>
>I'm sorry but your arguments are a load of rubbish.
>
> There is no such thing as Evolution!!!!!!!
>
>Darwin was wrong and admitted as much in his later life.
>
>
Whether Darwin changed his mind or not, does not change the reality
of evolution: Do you really believe that he was the first, or maybe
the only one to realize it? Do you really think that, like xtians,
a scientists would accept data that they couldn't test?
Unlike religion, evolution is not a belief, it is a cold hard fact.
The "theory" of evolution is the best current "model" that explains
all of the "facts", but you know that; don't you? It just don't fit too
well with your superstitious fear to admit it.
>
--
The spelling, like any opinion
stated here, is purely my own.
ICQ 15096558
Puck #162
BAAWA Knight.
Puck Greenman
wrote:
>In article <8vs8tl$2oo$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, "Bethzur"
><peter....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> David B. Greene <da...@alumni.XOUT.washington.edu> wrote in message
>> news:3a21973...@news.u.washington.edu...
>> > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>> > >zOz <wissensch...@my-deja.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>> > >
d
>> I'm sorry but your arguments are a load of rubbish.
>>
>> There is no such thing as Evolution!!!!!!!
>
>Who advanced the principle that the more exclamation points following a
>statement, the less likely it was to be meaningful?
>
No one, so far; What shall we call it, "Dyno's Principle" ? (:-)
>> Darwin was wrong and admitted as much in his later life.
>
>Wrong. <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html>
Peter van Velzen
Maybe Maff can provide the missing link?
--
"Think for yourself"
Peter van Velzen
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
http://home-2.worldonline.nl/~pbamvv/petervve.htm
Aron-Ra
6826C7.123...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> In article <8vtqei$ufk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Aron-Ra
<ilc...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In article <8vs8tl$2oo$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> > "Bethzur" <peter....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > David B. Greene <da...@alumni.XOUT.washington.edu> wrote in
message
> > > news:3a21973...@news.u.washington.edu...
> > > > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
> > > > >zOz <wissensch...@my-deja.com> posted in alt.atheism:
> > > > >
> > > > arguments, which are refutable, are not refuted by
> > > > your's ... sorry.
> > > >
> > > > Dave Greene
> > >
> > >
> > > There is no such thing as Evolution!!!!!!!
> > >
> >
> >
> > "I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his
> > last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but
in
> > any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought
or
> > belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then
or
> > earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the
> > U.S.A. ... The whole story has no foundation whatever."
> > [Henrietta Darwin, on her father's alleged 'conversion', 1922
>
> s/wife/daughter/, no?
Doh! Yeah I meant to say daughter. Sorry.
WickedDyno
all!No....@uunet.uu.net wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2000 20:16:44 -0500, WickedDyno
> <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <8vs8tl$2oo$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, "Bethzur"
> ><peter....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> David B. Greene <da...@alumni.XOUT.washington.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:3a21973...@news.u.washington.edu...
> >> > Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
> >> > >zOz <wissensch...@my-deja.com> posted in alt.atheism:
> >> > >
> d
> >> I'm sorry but your arguments are a load of rubbish.
> >>
> >> There is no such thing as Evolution!!!!!!!
> >
> >Who advanced the principle that the more exclamation points following a
> >statement, the less likely it was to be meaningful?
> >
> No one, so far; What shall we call it, "Dyno's Principle" ? (:-)
No, someone's said that somewhere, I just can't recall who, where, or in
what context.
rogue
>
>rogue wrote in message <3a228d1d...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>JERRY
>>That's Peter. He comes back periodically to preach a little and when
>>confronted with the failures of the bible, and unable to refute what
>>he is presented with, he leaves for a bit then comes back when he
>>thinks that the group has changed enough that they won't remember him,
>>or he uses a different nick, such as Bethzur.
>
>ROB
>Hey, so it's our old friend Peter Legge, with whom I've had such
>entertaining exchanges in the past. He seemed halfway reasonable during the
>first few exchanges I had with him, but he seems to have reverted to the
>"standard model YEC type" from then on in. He certanly doesn't seemto have
>taking my advice to go away and educate himself before posting drivel!
>
JERRY
If he were to educate himself, he wouldn't be the bible-spouting,
bible illiterate creationist that he is. Then we wouldn't be able to
have as much fun with him. ;-)
Derek Stevenson
Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <amg39.REMOVETHIS-
> 6826C7.123...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <8vtqei$ufk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Aron-Ra
> <ilc...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In article <8vs8tl$2oo$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> > > "Bethzur" <peter....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm sorry but your arguments are a load of rubbish.
> > > >
> > > > There is no such thing as Evolution!!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > Darwin was wrong and admitted as much in his later life.
> > >
> > > Funny, that's not what his wife said.
[snip quote]
> > > [Henrietta Darwin, on her father's alleged 'conversion', 1922
> >
> > s/wife/daughter/, no?
>
> Doh! Yeah I meant to say daughter. Sorry.
As long as we know who to blame when the creationists start claiming
that Darwin married his own daughter...
ronh
> There is no such thing as Evolution!!!!!!!
Okay. Let's see your compelling evidence for this statement.
> Darwin was wrong and admitted as much in his later life.
Ahh, another miracle.
ronh
Syvanen
"lenny" <le...@sentex.net> wrote:
> zOz <wissensch...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8vhmh5$f1r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
[snip]
>
> So even if the probability of a beneficial
> > mutation in a newborn were as high as 10^-5 for each factor,
> > the probability that beneficial mutations occur for all three
> > factors is 10^-15, i.e. extremely improbable.
>
> The problem is not your math,
That is wrong also. It is an extremely subtle point of which
many are unaware. To give an example in bacterial genetics. The
mutation frequency for resistance to say antibiotic 1 is 10^-7
and to antibiotic 2 is 10^-7 (these are in units of mutants arising
per generation and are usually a little less than the frequency
of mutants that would be found in a typical population).
According to the reasoning given above the frequency of mutants with
resistance to both antibiotics in the population should be 10^-14.
In fact, it is usually about 1000 higher than that. This apparent
dilemma can be explained by the same process that gives rise to
the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation phenomena. This fact, coupled to
the recombination that Lenny mentions, (especially if there is
positive s on any of the mutations) makes the chances of encountering
multiple mutations many orders of magnitude higher that would
be expected from the random assortment model.
I see creationists repeatedly making this error here.
Mike Syvanen
Curt van den Heuvel
wrote:
>The upright gait was only one of many traits which had to evolve
>in us after our separation from chimps. For that to happen, the
>structures of bones, of muscules and of tendons had to gradually
>change. Let us ignore that in fact the bone structure (involved
>in the upright-gait evolution) alone consists of several bones
>with each several traits.
You are committing the Teleological Fallacy. This is a fairly commonly
encountered misunderstanding of evolution, evident in such questions
as "What good is half a feather?", or "Why did fish evolve legs if
they couldn't use them?" The answer to the riddle lies in realizing
that evolution is blind. There is no goal, no direction. It therefore
follows that any change that occurs must be immediately useful *in
some context* in order to be preserved. This context need not be the
same as a later one.
For example, fish could have used modified fins to "walk" through the
weeds of shallow lakes in search of prey. The modifications that took
place in their fins for this purpose turned out to be later useful for
walking on land. In a similar manner, reptiles could have used
half-formed feathers to provide warmth. The feathers would then have
later been matched with other modifications of the limb to allow for
flight.
The same applies to your example. You are assuming that all changes
that occurred in humans that enabled us to walk upright occurred *in
order* to allow humans to walk upright. This is a reversal of natural
selection. We may not know exactly what use evolution made of these
intermediate changes, but we also should not, in fact cannot, assume
that they happened purely to facilitate upright locomotion.
-Curt
sc...@home.com
>
>Peter, I'm still waiting for you to show me why Tim Taylor is wrong on
>the Parousia being supposed to happen during Jesus's lifetime.
>
Could you fill me in on the supposed case?
But for starters, if all the New Testament books were
written after Jesus died, was resurrected, and ascended,
why would they include in them a failed prophecy, to wit,
that the Son of Man would come while Jesus was yet on
earth?
Do you and/or Tim hold the position that Jesus was not
referring to himself when he used the phrase "the son
of man"?
regards,
Scott
Curt van den Heuvel
>In <3a228d1d...@news.earthlink.net>, rog...@earthlink.net (rogue) writes:
>>
>>Peter, I'm still waiting for you to show me why Tim Taylor is wrong on
>>the Parousia being supposed to happen during Jesus's lifetime.
>>
>I wouldn't mind taking this one on.
>
>Could you fill me in on the supposed case?
>
>But for starters, if all the New Testament books were
>written after Jesus died, was resurrected, and ascended,
>why would they include in them a failed prophecy, to wit,
>that the Son of Man would come while Jesus was yet on
>earth?
Where does the Bible state that the Son of Man would come while Jesus
was still on earth?
From the perspective of the author, the time had not yet passed. Mark,
by scholarly consensus, was the earliest of the four evangelists. His
"little apocalypse" is recorded in Mark 13. In this chapter, Mark (via
Jesus, the protagonist of his novel) seems to state that the Roman War
of 70 AD marked the start of the Great Tribulation (13:2, 7-8), and
that the destruction of Jerusalem matched Daniel's 'Abomination of
Desolation' (13:14). It is in this context that we find the phrase
"... this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done"
(13:30).
If Mark wrote shortly after 70 AD, and thought that this date marked
the start of the Great Tribulation, we may speculate, based on Daniel
8:14, that he expected the Jesus to return in about AD 73. This is
still within the time frame promised by Jesus.
When this date came and went, the later gospel writers hedged their
bets. Matthew, writing some time after Mark, copies his "little
apocalypse" almost verbatim (see Matthew 24), but includes a number of
parables to the effect that the Master might delay his coming (see
Matt 24:45 and following). Luke includes similar parables. John, on
the other hand, has a very different idea about the Parousia, being of
a more Gnostic bent.
-Curt
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Whether Darwin changed his mind or not, does not change the reality
>of evolution: Do you really believe that he was the first, or maybe
>the only one to realize it?
Second one, at least. First to publish. I don't recall the name of
the person who wrote him about it before he published, but Gould, at
least, has the name in one of his books.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
Al Klein
>The upright gait was only one of many traits which had to evolve
>in us after our separation from chimps.
Chimps are already most of the way to an upright gait. The common
ancestor probably was also, since Lucy walked very upright, almost 4
Mya, and the split was 1 or 2 My before that.
Since it very evidently happened in gradual stages, the rest of your
conjecture is nice, but it just didn't happen that way.
David B. Greene
>zOz <wissensch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>The upright gait was only one of many traits which had to evolve
>>structures of bones, of muscules and of tendons had to gradually
>>change. Let us ignore that in fact the bone structure (involved
>>in the upright-gait evolution) alone consists of several bones
>>with each several traits.
>
>You are committing the Teleological Fallacy. This is a fairly commonly
>encountered misunderstanding of evolution, evident in such questions
>as "What good is half a feather?", or "Why did fish evolve legs if
>they couldn't use them?" The answer to the riddle lies in realizing
>that evolution is blind. There is no goal, no direction. It therefore
>follows that any change that occurs must be immediately useful *in
>some context* in order to be preserved. This context need not be the
>same as a later one.
While I agree that intermediate forms may be useful I'd question
the contention that "evolution is blind." While it may actually
turn out that evolution is blind it seems premature to state such
as a fact at this time when it is merely an article of faith.
Dave Greene
Aron-Ra
akl...@villagenet.com wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2000 13:15:25 -0500, Puck Greenman <pu...@pooks.hill.co.uk>
> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >Whether Darwin changed his mind or not, does not change the reality
> >of evolution: Do you really believe that he was the first, or maybe
> >the only one to realize it?
>
> Second one, at least. First to publish. I don't recall the name of
> the person who wrote him about it before he published, but Gould, at
> least, has the name in one of his books.
I read that Darwin's own grandfather first told him about common
relationships between all mammals, but that Aristotle was actually the
first one to write of it.
Aron-Ra
ViolentMedia
science book, watched NATURE, Wild America, or any other wild animal
program.
My father is a Southern Old Fashioned baptist minister, and even he knows
the difference between natural selection and the idea of monkey--> man. (I
am an atheist by the way)
I wish xians would stop confusing the two and at least acknowledge that
darwin had some things right. If my old fashioned Fire and brimstone father
can, surely you idiots can as well.
Simply put, the weak die out. By the way you apparently have never seen the
ash colored butterflies in englad that appeared in around 100 years of the
industrial revolution there. this is not some instant change. There were
white butterflies, they died, the ones already black, lived longer, and
reproduced.
For God's sake, get an education.
"David B. Greene" <da...@alumni.XOUT.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:3a2339da...@news.u.washington.edu...
Puck Greenman
>On 27 Nov 2000 13:15:25 -0500, Puck Greenman <pu...@pooks.hill.co.uk>
>posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>Whether Darwin changed his mind or not, does not change the reality
>>of evolution: Do you really believe that he was the first, or maybe
>>the only one to realize it?
>
>Second one, at least. First to publish. I don't recall the name of
>the person who wrote him about it before he published,
I have that problem, I know the name, the knowledge is firmly held
between my ears, and refuses to go to my fingers tips, which is where
I need it (:-)
> but Gould, at
>least, has the name in one of his books.
I have come across it in several places, and I know that it is in one
of my own books; I'll prolly remember it as I sit down to my xmas dinner,
and then not be able to get it out of my mind till June.
Such is life.
Mike Haubrich
"David B. Greene" <da...@alumni.XOUT.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:3a2339da...@news.u.washington.edu...
> heu...@primenet.com (Curt van den Heuvel) wrote:
> >zOz <wissensch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >>The upright gait was only one of many traits which had to evolve
> >>in us after our separation from chimps. For that to happen, the
> >>structures of bones, of muscules and of tendons had to gradually
> >>change. Let us ignore that in fact the bone structure (involved
> >>in the upright-gait evolution) alone consists of several bones
> >>with each several traits.
> >
> >You are committing the Teleological Fallacy. This is a fairly commonly
> >encountered misunderstanding of evolution, evident in such questions
> >as "What good is half a feather?", or "Why did fish evolve legs if
> >they couldn't use them?" The answer to the riddle lies in realizing
> >that evolution is blind. There is no goal, no direction. It therefore
> >follows that any change that occurs must be immediately useful *in
> >some context* in order to be preserved. This context need not be the
> >same as a later one.
>
> While I agree that intermediate forms may be useful I'd question
> the contention that "evolution is blind." While it may actually
> turn out that evolution is blind it seems premature to state such
> as a fact at this time when it is merely an article of faith.
>
> Dave Greene
>
>
Dave, Dave, Dave -
Do you actually read what you write? Evolution is a process, not an entity.
It has no purpose, it has no goal, it has no will. It is the means by which
life continues on this planet as conditions change. It is an expression of
dynamism and chaos.
Or were you being sarcastic?
Vincent Maycock
"David B. Greene" <da...@alumni.XOUT.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:3a2339da...@news.u.washington.edu...
> heu...@primenet.com (Curt van den Heuvel) wrote:
> >zOz <wissensch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >>The upright gait was only one of many traits which had to evolve
> >>in us after our separation from chimps. For that to happen, the
> >>structures of bones, of muscules and of tendons had to gradually
> >>change. Let us ignore that in fact the bone structure (involved
> >>in the upright-gait evolution) alone consists of several bones
> >>with each several traits.
> >
> >You are committing the Teleological Fallacy. This is a fairly commonly
> >encountered misunderstanding of evolution, evident in such questions
> >as "What good is half a feather?", or "Why did fish evolve legs if
> >they couldn't use them?" The answer to the riddle lies in realizing
> >that evolution is blind. There is no goal, no direction. It therefore
> >follows that any change that occurs must be immediately useful *in
> >some context* in order to be preserved. This context need not be the
> >same as a later one.
>
> While I agree that intermediate forms may be useful I'd question
> the contention that "evolution is blind." While it may actually
> turn out that evolution is blind it seems premature to state such
> as a fact at this time when it is merely an article of faith.
There is no reason to think evolution is a guided process.
--
Vince