How can we distinguish between "gradual evolution" and "saltation"?
rev.goetz
John Harshman
> How can we distinguish between "gradual evolution" and "saltation"?
>
In what context? In the fossil record? In a phylogenetic tree? In a lab
experiment? Logically? Your question is not clear.
shel...@msn.com
wrote:
Wouldn't you also have to know how many Darwin's it takes to make a
peck?
Or,
blah blah, blah blah blah, blah, blah blah blah blah.
Martin Andersen
> How can we distinguish between "gradual evolution" and "saltation"?
>
how is it reasonable to distinguish between them and "gradual" evolution, the
way you do with your question?
By analogy, adding a simple negation to a boolean argument is in one way a
slight gradual change (adding a single symbol '¬') and in another, a huge change
completely inversing the result.
If you mean "how can we distinguish between there having been a set of species
at one time in the pass which is somehow completely different from the set that
exists now, with no natural mechanism to explain the transition from one to the
other and there being such a mechanism?" the answer is simple. By formulating
theories that provide a set of predictions (some call this "doing science") that
allow for observations being made in support of them (or refuting them!). Like
expecting there to be transitional fossils in terms of morphology, and there
being a genetic similarities between all living things if indeed they are related.
Ernest Major
rev.goetz <jimgo...@yahoo.com> writes
>How can we distinguish between "gradual evolution" and "saltation"?
>
asking, in the same way that we can distinguish between "cold" and
"hot".
--
alias Ernest Major
shel...@msn.com
> In message <1185834551.157076.174...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
> rev.goetz <jimgoetz...@yahoo.com> writes>How can we distinguish between "gradual evolution" and "saltation"?
>
> Assuming that I've correctly identified the question that your are
> asking, in the same way that we can distinguish between "cold" and
> "hot".
> --
rev.goetz
> In message <1185834551.157076.174...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Assuming that I've correctly identified the question that your are
> asking, in the same way that we can distinguish between "cold" and
> "hot".
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Yes. I suppose their is no objective way to distinguish between
gradual evolution and saltation. And perhaps Behe has never addressed
this.
rev.goetz
wrote:
I will start with Darwin's view of gradualism. I suppose he meant that
all surviving modifications (in regards to the history of descent with
modification) were gradual. And I suppose that he was focusing on
anatomical changes. And in our molecular age, we can apply this to
biochemical systems, which would imply that all surviving step of
biochemical modifications (in the history of descent with
modification) were gradual.
Is there any way to test Darwin's view of gradualism in regards to the
history of modifications in anatomy and biochemical systems?
Rich Townsend
Argumentum ad blah?
shel...@msn.com
Argumentum ad blahtumitisshakalakaboomboom.
Perplexed in Peoria
"rev.goetz" <jimgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1185848356.4...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Well, one way is to observe evolution actually taking place, over periods
of decades or centuries. We can observe novel variations appearing and
use some criterion to divide these into gradual vs saltational. And
then we can wait to see whether the ones that survive and are heritable
are mostly of the 'gradual' sort.
My impression is that 'saltation' (by some loose definitions of the word)
happens fairly frequently and fairly successfully in the plant world.
It seems to be less frequent and less successful among animals. But
everyone who wishes to think about the subject should probably be familiar
with the story of Slijper's goat.
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1532067
As for distinguishing saltation after the fact from the fossil record,
it seems difficult. Same applies to distinguishing it in an existing
dramatically polymorphic population.
Iain
> How can we distinguish between "gradual evolution" and "saltation"?
Taste?
~Iain
John Harshman
> On Jul 30, 7:20 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>rev.goetz wrote:
>>
>>>How can we distinguish between "gradual evolution" and "saltation"?
>>
>>In what context? In the fossil record? In a phylogenetic tree? In a lab
>>experiment? Logically? Your question is not clear.
>
>
> I will start with Darwin's view of gradualism. I suppose he meant that
> all surviving modifications (in regards to the history of descent with
> modification) were gradual. And I suppose that he was focusing on
> anatomical changes. And in our molecular age, we can apply this to
> biochemical systems, which would imply that all surviving step of
> biochemical modifications (in the history of descent with
> modification) were gradual.
By "gradual", I assume you mean "small" here. A single modification
can't be gradual, since the term applies to rates and requires some kind
of time component.
Darwin assumed that most variation was small in effect, yes. As Gould
has pointed out, if most variation consists of macromutations (e.g. frog
to prince in one step), then natural selection has little creative
power. The smaller the individual steps, the more natural selection can
be considered as directing evolution's course.
> Is there any way to test Darwin's view of gradualism in regards to the
> history of modifications in anatomy and biochemical systems?
Yes, there are several ways. If you're talking strictly about long-ago
history here, not real-time observation, there are still ways to
estimate the magnitudes of particular changes. We can, for example,
partially reconstruct the history of molecular fixations by mapping them
onto the phylogeny. If nodes are close enough to each other, there will
be only a few differences in any one local region of the genome on any
one branch. And we can try to determine the phenotypic effects of those
changes by experiment.
And of course one can do the same with anatomy, for which the fossil
record can be helpful.
Kermit
It's a difficult concept, I know, but such clarification actually aids
dialog leading to understanding or discovering how things work. If
that were one's goal, that is.
Kermit
UC
> How can we distinguish between "gradual evolution" and "saltation"?
Argumentum ad poopulum....
rev.goetz
wrote:
> "rev.goetz" <jimgoetz...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1185848356.4...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 30, 7:20 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> > > rev.goetz wrote:
> > > > How can we distinguish between "gradual evolution" and "saltation"?
>
> > > In what context? In the fossil record? In a phylogenetic tree? In a lab
> > > experiment? Logically? Your question is not clear.
>
> > I will start with Darwin's view of gradualism. I suppose he meant that
> > all surviving modifications (in regards to the history of descent with
> > modification) were gradual. And I suppose that he was focusing on
> > anatomical changes. And in our molecular age, we can apply this to
> > biochemical systems, which would imply that all surviving step of
> > biochemical modifications (in the history of descent with
> > modification) were gradual.
>
> > Is there any way to test Darwin's view of gradualism in regards to the
> > history of modifications in anatomy and biochemical systems?
>
> Well, one way is to observe evolution actually taking place, over periods
> of decades or centuries. We can observe novel variations appearing and
> use some criterion to divide these into gradual vs saltational. And
> then we can wait to see whether the ones that survive and are heritable
> are mostly of the 'gradual' sort.
>
> My impression is that 'saltation' (by some loose definitions of the word)
> happens fairly frequently and fairly successfully in the plant world.
> It seems to be less frequent and less successful among animals. But
> everyone who wishes to think about the subject should probably be familiar
>
> As for distinguishing saltation after the fact from the fossil record,
> it seems difficult. Same applies to distinguishing it in an existing
> dramatically polymorphic population.
Studying dramatically polymorphic population sounds like a valuable
and fun way to study evolution. And our current ability to quickly
generate DNA sequences and complete genomes could pinpoint the
mutational causes of polymorphisms better than you might think.
What dramatically polymorphic populations did you have in mind? Any
animals?
What would be the criteria for distinguishing between "gradual
evolution" versus "saltation"?
John Harshman
Depends. The distinction can occur in at least two levels, and is a
subjectively placed point on a continuum in either case.
Saltation can be considered equivalent to a macromutation, in which case
it happens in an individual, and we get a polymorphic population. Or it
can refer, I suppose to very fast speciation, in which case it might
conceivably happen to a population, though the usual instant speciation
happens in a couple of generations, being completed in one or a very few
individuals (thinking about allopolyploidy here). If you think that
speciation and morphological evolution are somehow closely related
(which I don't), then saltational speciation might be associated with
saltational evolution of morphology.
What's macromutation and what's ordinary-sized mutation is again a
matter of taste. Now if you're talking about a single event giving rise
to a new and complex adaptive feature, I'd call that macromutation. And
it would seem to require one of two situations: either the feature isn't
as new or complex as you think it is, or there is some unknown law of
physics that preferentially makes macromutations useful. The goat you
have been told of is a case of the former: previously evolved behavioral
and/or developmental flexibility is a mechanism for adjusting the rest
of the organism to big changes in some feature (loss being the most
likely such change). If you want, say, an eye in one leap, that's when
you need the new law of physics. Or Jesus, of course.
Perplexed in Peoria
"rev.goetz" <jimgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1185927613.4...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Dogs? ... It seems I read something about solitary vs gregarious phases
in locust. ... Is polydactility a big enough change to be called a saltation?
Even vs odd toe count is supposed to be a big deal among grazing animals.
> What would be the criteria for distinguishing between "gradual
> evolution" versus "saltation"?
Lack of 'transitional forms'? ;-)
rev.goetz
wrote:
> rev.goetz wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 7:20 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>rev.goetz wrote:
>
> >>>How can we distinguish between "gradual evolution" and "saltation"?
>
> >>In what context? In the fossil record? In a phylogenetic tree? In a lab
> >>experiment? Logically? Your question is not clear.
>
> > I will start with Darwin's view of gradualism. I suppose he meant that
> > all surviving modifications (in regards to the history of descent with
> > modification) were gradual. And I suppose that he was focusing on
> > anatomical changes. And in our molecular age, we can apply this to
> > biochemical systems, which would imply that all surviving step of
> > biochemical modifications (in the history of descent with
> > modification) were gradual.
>
> By "gradual", I assume you mean "small" here. A single modification
> can't be gradual, since the term applies to rates and requires some kind
> of time component.
Yes. "Gradual" implies multiple steps.
>
> Darwin assumed that most variation was small in effect, yes. As Gould
> has pointed out, if most variation consists of macromutations (e.g. frog
> to prince in one step), then natural selection has little creative
> power. The smaller the individual steps, the more natural selection can
> be considered as directing evolution's course.
I want to make sure that I understand the term "macromutation". I
assume macromutations have nothing to do with the size of the mutation
such as a point substitution or indel or chromosome aberration, but
the term refers to a major physiological changes such as a major
change in biochemistry or anatomy. So a "micromutation" causes no or
minor changes in physiology while a macromutation causes major changes
in physiology. Is that correct?
IIRC, Darwin also said something like if the origin of all anatomy
(such as the eye) could not be broken down into small steps of
evolution, then his hypothesis fails. Of course, he was confident that
all anatomical evolution could be broken down into small steps. But
what size steps do you think that Darwin was thought outside of his
theory? And if we translate this neodarwinism, then we may ask, What
magnitude of a macromutation would falsify Darwin's hypothesis of
gradual evolution?
Perplexed in Peoria
"rev.goetz" <jimgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1185991592.8...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Gould covers this pretty well in "the brick". Darwin's main concern was
to defend his hypothesis that natural selection, by itself, is the guiding
force in evolution. If mutations are small, then it doesn't matter much
whether or not they are non-random in some sense. Small mutations, appearing
sporadically, can only survive if NS deems it appropriate for them to survive.
It doesn't matter then whether most mutations are beneficial or most are
deleterious - NS rather than the mysterious mutation mechanism is in the
driver's seat.
But if instead, things like the eye are caused by sporadic macro-mutations -
big steps in exactly the direction that the organism 'needs', then it is no
longer possible to ignore the exact mechanism producing the mutations. It
might be God or some unknown force of entelechy that is really driving things.
So, my take on it is that a few instances of macro-mutation in the "right
direction" don't suffice to overthrow Darwin. Out of millions of macro-mutations,
we would expect a few of them to be in the right direction just by chance.
But to satisfy Darwin that NS really is the creative causal agent, the
overwhelming bulk of the directive power has to come from NS operating on
small differences, rather than from NS making slam-dunk decisions to preserve
some miraculous-seeming big-step-in-the-right-direction.
John Harshman
It's on the right track. I would say that a macromutation is a mutation
of large effect. It's often been supposed that large effect goes hand in
hand with large genetic change, but this is clearly not the case. And I
have to reject your obsession with physiology, whose definition you
should look up immediately. But yes, more or less.
> IIRC, Darwin also said something like if the origin of all anatomy
> (such as the eye) could not be broken down into small steps of
> evolution, then his hypothesis fails. Of course, he was confident that
> all anatomical evolution could be broken down into small steps. But
> what size steps do you think that Darwin was thought outside of his
> theory? And if we translate this neodarwinism, then we may ask, What
> magnitude of a macromutation would falsify Darwin's hypothesis of
> gradual evolution?
That's a matter of personal taste. I suppose you would put it at
whatever level makes natural selection unimportant as a directing force
in evolution -- at which major evolutionary changes appear in a single
bound, fully formed. And now we have to ask what "major" means. But I
think we could agree that a mutation that turns a patch of
photosensitive cells into a camera eye with lens, retina, pupil, and
intrinsic and extrinsic muscles would be a macromutation, and would turn
natural selection into a minor factor in evolution.
rev.goetz
Here is the defintion that I was implying: "All the functions of a
living organism or any of its parts." And IIRC, one of my genetics
professors would say something to the effect that mutations cause
changes in physiology. And I do not see how I was misusing it. Why do
you think that I am misusing it or is it a matter of taste?
>
> > IIRC, Darwin also said something like if the origin of all anatomy
> > (such as the eye) could not be broken down into small steps of
> > evolution, then his hypothesis fails. Of course, he was confident that
> > all anatomical evolution could be broken down into small steps. But
> > what size steps do you think that Darwin was thought outside of his
> > theory? And if we translate this neodarwinism, then we may ask, What
> > magnitude of a macromutation would falsify Darwin's hypothesis of
> > gradual evolution?
>
> That's a matter of personal taste. I suppose you would put it at
> whatever level makes natural selection unimportant as a directing force
> in evolution -- at which major evolutionary changes appear in a single
> bound, fully formed. And now we have to ask what "major" means. But I
> think we could agree that a mutation that turns a patch of
> photosensitive cells into a camera eye with lens, retina, pupil, and
> intrinsic and extrinsic muscles would be a macromutation, and would turn
> natural selection into a minor factor in evolution.
I suppose it is all matter of arbitrary discretion, which can cause
disagreements among scientists.
Well, we already know from comparative biology that such a
macromutation did not occur in eye evolution. But even it it did, then
it would not make natural selection a minor factor in all evolution,
just eye evolution.
I suppose that if there are any cases of "irreducible complexity",
then it would be an issue of how a macromutation caused perhaps
complex molecular tinkering.
rev.goetz
wrote:
> "rev.goetz" <jimgoetz...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1185991592.8...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
I agree that if we hypothetically could pinpoint a few cases of
"extraordinary" macromutations (regardless if from a fluke or
something else), then it would not overthrow neodarwinsim. Perhaps
this another angle to address proponents of ID.
UC
There is in reality no such thing as a perfect continuum. In black and
white photography, for instance, the shades of grey are produced by
bits of metallic silver, each perfectly black, of various sizes and
distribution patterns. What looks like 'grey' is really just black
particles of various sizes and distibutions.
Likewise with evolution. No two organisms are absolutely identical
genetically. There are always a few differences in the make-up of
individuals, and those differences have specific loci: their DNA. The
'particles' that make up DNA (adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil)
are the ONLY building blocks of proteins, so genetic changes are
always nothing more than changes in the arrangement of these compounds.
rev.goetz
wrote:
> "rev.goetz" <jimgoetz...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1185927613.4...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Are we talking about populations of grazing animals were at least 1%
of the population has a different number of toes? What species?
>
> > What would be the criteria for distinguishing between "gradual
> > evolution" versus "saltation"?
>
> Lack of 'transitional forms'? ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Harshman
Please don't interrupt when the grownups are talking. It's impolite.
Yes, there is no perfect continuum. But if the steps are small enough,
nobody but a useless pedant would quibble. There is no uracil in DNA;
you should have said "thymine". A, C, G, and T are not the building
blocks of proteins; amino acids are the building blocks of proteins.
"Changes in the arrangement of these compounds" is such a bad way of
stating anything that I'm just going to call it wrong without trying to
guess precisely what you thought you meant.
Now go back to arguing about Linnean vernaculars. Your own little
threads exist for a reason.
Frank J
> How can we distinguish between "gradual evolution" and "saltation"?
Assuming that by "saltation" you mean a truly radical genomic
rearrangement, a la Goldschmidt, rather than "macromutations" that are
considered within the general framework of "gradualism," it could be
supported by falsifying "macroevolution." Douglas Theobald offers
dozens of potential falsifiers, which anti-evolution activists
shrewdly avoid like the plague:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Now some might contend that a successful falsification of
"macroevolution" would support independent abiogenesis better than
saltation. But the claim that includes biological, if not genetic,
continuity, would still be the less exraordinary one.
How *not* to do it is by using the tired, and increasingly pathetic
arguments from incredulity promoted by Behe, Dembski et al.
Frank J
Behe - one of the few anti-evolution activists who specifically admits
biological continuity (not necessarly saltation - could be the front-
loading he alluded to before) - seems to be fully aware that the
difference is in degree, not "kind." But that doesn't stop him from
trying to have it both ways. Ironically he's probably right in one
respect - there is an "edge" of evolution as we know it - certainly
this side of "a dog giving birth to a cat". Furthermore, if what I
read about the "Cambrian explosion vs Permian quiescence" is a
reliable indicator, that "edge" may actually be retreating, though not
to where Behe wishes it to be. I note with amusement how he stretches
frantically to include Genera in the "gray area" between "by
evolution" and "not by evolution." Gotta throw the classic
creationists a bone, however small.
TomS
<1186011984.4...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Frank J stated..."
There certainly things that are "beyond the edge" of evolution.
At least, without an expansion of the meaning, the origin of life
is beyond, although it certainly may be possible that something
very similar to biological evolution was involved.
To generalize on your example, many things which do not
happen are "beyond the edge".
On the other hand, what is "beyond the edge of ID"?
That depends, I guess ...
In one sense, everything is "beyond the edge of ID", for it
doesn't explain anything. It doesn't explain any of the things
that are given as examples of things that are beyond the edge
of evolution. It doesn't explain "micro"evolution, either.
In another sense, everything is "within the edge of ID", even
a dog giving birth to a cat, a flat earth, ... well, maybe not
"a stone so big that it can't be intelligently designed". :)
--
---Tom S.
"There was a lot more to magic, as Harry quickly found out, than waving your
wand and saying a few funny words."
JK Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Chapter VIII, page 133
UC
wrote:
What I am saying is that what LOOKS like a continuum is really not;
discrete changes are responsible. It was only after Mendel discovered
genes that it was possible to explain evolutiuon. Genes are particles
of information, made up of discrete compounds (adenine, guanine,
cytosine and thymine, thanks for the correction) whose arrangements
are subject to change. But the compounds themselves are not.
John Harshman
And what I'm saying is that your litle insight is already known to
everyone here, but is useless and irrelevant to the discussion.
In fact, in context it's wrong. Note that the continuum being considered
is not one of genotypes, but of mutational effects. And this is indeed a
true continuum. The magnitude of effect for any of these discrete
mutations can assume any value and is not drawn from a discrete
distribution. I don't expect you to understand this point, considering
your intellectual limitations; just take my word for it that you are not
contributing to the discussion.
UC
OK, I get your point. Yes, you're right. But the notion of "gradual
evolution" vs 'saltation' is a false one. Evolution affects
POPULATIONS, and populations vary at any given moment as much or more
than they may over time. The creatures at one end of a cave may be the
same species as the those at the other end, but there may be a
difference in size, preferred food, mating habits, or any number of
things. If all of a sudden there is a collapse of part of the cave and
those at the north end are wiped out, those at the south end 'are' the
species from now on, and no 'saltation' was involved: just a bit of
bad luck.
Also, a species that is distributed over a wide area may become
loacalized due to isolation from other sub-groups. Again, no
'saltation' is involved. The founding population in each cave may have
been slightly different to start with, even though of the same
species.
See: Adaptation and Natural Selection in Caves: The Evolution of
Gammarus minus (ISBN: 0674004256)
David C. Culver, Thomas Kane, Daniel Fong
> I don't expect you to understand this point, considering
> your intellectual limitations; just take my word for it that you are not
> contributing to the discussion.
Of course I am.
John Harshman
"Physiology" is usually used to refer to such things as energetics,
metabolism, and mechanical efficiency. That's a subset of function.
Behavior, anatomy, and development are not usually considered to be
physiology. Perhaps I'm not going by the definition as found in
dictionaries, but I'm going by what physiologists write about and
research, and by what is taught in physiology courses and textbooks.
Doubtless there are disputes over turf from time to time. But I would
not say that mutations cause changes in physiology. Those that do
anything cause changes to phenotypes, some of which are physiological
and some of which are not.
>>>IIRC, Darwin also said something like if the origin of all anatomy
>>>(such as the eye) could not be broken down into small steps of
>>>evolution, then his hypothesis fails. Of course, he was confident that
>>>all anatomical evolution could be broken down into small steps. But
>>>what size steps do you think that Darwin was thought outside of his
>>>theory? And if we translate this neodarwinism, then we may ask, What
>>>magnitude of a macromutation would falsify Darwin's hypothesis of
>>>gradual evolution?
>>
>>That's a matter of personal taste. I suppose you would put it at
>>whatever level makes natural selection unimportant as a directing force
>>in evolution -- at which major evolutionary changes appear in a single
>>bound, fully formed. And now we have to ask what "major" means. But I
>>think we could agree that a mutation that turns a patch of
>>photosensitive cells into a camera eye with lens, retina, pupil, and
>>intrinsic and extrinsic muscles would be a macromutation, and would turn
>>natural selection into a minor factor in evolution.
>
> I suppose it is all matter of arbitrary discretion, which can cause
> disagreements among scientists.
>
> Well, we already know from comparative biology that such a
> macromutation did not occur in eye evolution. But even it it did, then
> it would not make natural selection a minor factor in all evolution,
> just eye evolution.
Yes. I was using it as an example. If the majority of novel structures
emerged through macromutation of the sort I imagined for the eye,
natural selection would be a minor factor.
> I suppose that if there are any cases of "irreducible complexity",
> then it would be an issue of how a macromutation caused perhaps
> complex molecular tinkering.
Not really. Irreducible complexity can easily be explained by
accumulation of small changes. Just not the sort that Behe is capable of
imagining, i.e. the cumulative addition of unchanging parts to a fixed
structure.
UC
Before looking in the dictionary, I came up with this:
'Physiology' means the study of the structure of an organism, with
regard not only to form, but of function.
Now, here's the dictionary entry:
"Main Entry:physiology
Pronunciation:*fiz***l*.j*, -ji
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-es
Etymology:Latin physiologia, from Greek, from physi- + -logia -logy
1 obsolete a : NATURAL SCIENCE, NATURAL PHILOSOPHY 1 b : a
particular theory or view of nature
2 : a branch of biology dealing with the processes, activities, and
phenomena incidental to and characteristic of life or of living
organisms : the study of the functions and activities of living matter
(as of organs, tissues, or cells) as such and of the physical and
chemical phenomena involved distinguished from anatomy; compare
PSYCHOLOGY
3 : the organic processes and phenomena of an organism or any of its
parts or of a particular bodily process *the physiology of the
jellyfish* *physiology of the thyroid gland* *physiology of a rust
fungus* *the physiology of digestion*
4 : a treatise on physiology"
Perplexed in Peoria
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uranium-11860764...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Before looking in the dictionary, I came up with this:
>
> 'Physiology' means the study of the structure of an organism, with
> regard not only to form, but of function.
Which strongly suggests that you should have looked in the dictionary
first.
What made you think that we would be interested in your misconceptions
regarding the meaning of words?
UC
wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:uranium-11860764...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > Before looking in the dictionary, I came up with this:
>
> > 'Physiology' means the study of the structure of an organism, with
> > regard not only to form, but of function.
>
> Which strongly suggests that you should have looked in the dictionary
> first.
>
> What made you think that we would be interested in your misconceptions
> regarding the meaning of words?
Actually, my gloss was pretty accurate, off the top of my head. Why do
you think it isn't?
Perplexed in Peoria
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uranium-11860818...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 2, 2:49 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > "UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:uranium-11860764...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > > Before looking in the dictionary, I came up with this:
> >
> > > 'Physiology' means the study of the structure of an organism, with
> > > regard not only to form, but of function.
> >
> > Which strongly suggests that you should have looked in the dictionary
> > first.
> >
> > What made you think that we would be interested in your misconceptions
> > regarding the meaning of words?
>
> Actually, my gloss was pretty accurate, off the top of my head. Why do
> you think it isn't?
Your mention of 'structure'.
Pay particular attention to the words "distinguished from anatomy" below.
Look up 'anatomy' in your dictionary.
But even if your attempt had been right on the money, you didn't answer
my question. Which was: What made you think we would be interested in
your attempt to define a technical term outside your field?
UC
wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:uranium-11860818...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I was thinking in my mind that 'anatomy' was more or less the study
merely of the structures from a mechanical aspect, as if in dead
tissues or organs. I just did not state that explicitly. Physiology
studies organs and tissues as functioning, living entities, from the
chemical aspect.
Frank J
> "On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:46:24 -0700, in article
..on how one defines ID. And since the ID promoters vary the definiton
to suit their purpose, that's impossible to do - unless you make it
clear that you are a fan of ID, then you can define it anyway you
like. Once you criticize it, you are always wrong.
>
> In one sense, everything is "beyond the edge of ID", for it
> doesn't explain anything. It doesn't explain any of the things
> that are given as examples of things that are beyond the edge
> of evolution. It doesn't explain "micro"evolution, either.
>
> In another sense, everything is "within the edge of ID", even
> a dog giving birth to a cat, a flat earth, ... well, maybe not
> "a stone so big that it can't be intelligently designed". :)
And believe it or not I have heard IDers, in so many words make both
points. IOW, ID "explains" everything, so it explains nothing.
One of my tests for whether a fan of ID is a most likely a scammer or
just scammed is how well they hide the inconsistencies.
>
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "There was a lot more to magic, as Harry quickly found out, than waving your
> wand and saying a few funny words."
> JK Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Chapter VIII, page 133- Hide quoted text -
rev.goetz
wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:uranium-11860818...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 2, 2:49 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> > > "UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:uranium-11860764...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Before looking in the dictionary, I came up with this:
>
> > > > 'Physiology' means the study of the structure of an organism, with
> > > > regard not only to form, but of function.
>
> > > Which strongly suggests that you should have looked in the dictionary
> > > first.
>
> > > What made you think that we would be interested in your misconceptions
> > > regarding the meaning of words?
>
> > Actually, my gloss was pretty accurate, off the top of my head. Why do
> > you think it isn't?
>
> Your mention of 'structure'.
>
> Pay particular attention to the words "distinguished from anatomy" below.
> Look up 'anatomy' in your dictionary.
>
> But even if your attempt had been right on the money, you didn't answer
> my question. Which was: What made you think we would be interested in
> your attempt to define a technical term outside your field?
Everybody in TO knows that UC is the worlds most renown linguist. What
were you thinking?
rev.goetz
I suppose that it would be in my best interest to use the technical
definition of "physiology" instead of the general defintion because
evidently the general defintion can cause confusion to biologists. And
I suppose that I can easily replace the general definition of
"physiology" with the definition of "phenotype" for my purposes in
defining macromutation versus micromutation. So macromutations cause
large changes in phenotypes regardless if the mutation is a point
substitution or indel or conversion or chromosome aberration. Does
that sound correct?
I see articles that indicate that supposed IC systems can be broken
down more than Behe admits, but I still think that science is far from
saying that all complex biological systems can easily be explained by
accumulation of small changes.
But then again, we need to agree on the criteria for distinguishing
between small changes in phenotypes versus large changes.
>
>
>
> >>>>>Is there any way to test Darwin's view of gradualism in regards to the
> >>>>>history of modifications in anatomy and biochemical systems?
>
> >>>>Yes, there are several ways. If you're talking strictly about long-ago
> >>>>history here, not real-time observation, there are still ways to
> >>>>estimate the magnitudes of particular changes. We can, for example,
> >>>>partially reconstruct the history of molecular fixations by mapping them
> >>>>onto the phylogeny. If nodes are close enough to each other, there will
> >>>>be only a few differences in any one local region of the genome on any
> >>>>one branch. And we can try to determine the phenotypic effects of those
> >>>>changes by experiment.
>
> >>>>And of course one can do the same with anatomy, for which the fossil
> >>>>record can be helpful.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
UC
I was simply providing my gloss as a non-expert so those who were also
non-experts would understand.
>
> Everybody in TO knows that UC is the worlds most renown linguist. What
> were you thinking?
"World's", not "worlds"
John Harshman
> On Aug 2, 12:57 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
> So macromutations cause
> large changes in phenotypes regardless if the mutation is a point
> substitution or indel or conversion or chromosome aberration. Does
> that sound correct?
That would be my understanding. Again, it's often been assumed in the
past that big changes in phenotype don't happen without big changes in
genotype, and this conflation is fossilized in the common understanding
of "macromutation". But you do have to separate them, and I consider
phenotype to be the more important criterion here.
[snip]
>>>I suppose that if there are any cases of "irreducible complexity",
>>>then it would be an issue of how a macromutation caused perhaps
>>>complex molecular tinkering.
>>
>>Not really. Irreducible complexity can easily be explained by
>>accumulation of small changes. Just not the sort that Behe is capable of
>>imagining, i.e. the cumulative addition of unchanging parts to a fixed
>>structure.
>
> I see articles that indicate that supposed IC systems can be broken
> down more than Behe admits, but I still think that science is far from
> saying that all complex biological systems can easily be explained by
> accumulation of small changes.
While true, this is far from what you said last time. Irreducible
complexity is not defined by the evolutionary history of a system, but
by its present characteristics. If we are currently unable to completely
and in detail account for the origin of all complex systems, that's
hardly an argument that IC systems can't evolve, or even that they're
unlikely to evolve.
> But then again, we need to agree on the criteria for distinguishing
> between small changes in phenotypes versus large changes.
Good luck. Another arbitrary division of a continuum.
>>>>>>>Is there any way to test Darwin's view of gradualism in regards to the
>>>>>>>history of modifications in anatomy and biochemical systems?
>>
>>>>>>Yes, there are several ways. If you're talking strictly about long-ago
>>>>>>history here, not real-time observation, there are still ways to
>>>>>>estimate the magnitudes of particular changes. We can, for example,
>>>>>>partially reconstruct the history of molecular fixations by mapping them
>>>>>>onto the phylogeny. If nodes are close enough to each other, there will
>>>>>>be only a few differences in any one local region of the genome on any
>>>>>>one branch. And we can try to determine the phenotypic effects of those
>>>>>>changes by experiment.
>>
>>>>>>And of course one can do the same with anatomy, for which the fossil
>>>>>>record can be helpful.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
Is it possible to snip this out, even when posting from Google Groups?
At least you might ask them to do away with this annoying feature.
rev.goetz
> On Jul 30, 6:29 pm, "rev.goetz" <jimgoetz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > How can we distinguish between "gradual evolution" and "saltation"?
>
> Assuming that by "saltation" you mean a truly radical genomic
> rearrangement, a la Goldschmidt, rather than "macromutations" that are
> considered within the general framework of "gradualism," it could be
> supported by falsifying "macroevolution." Douglas Theobald offers
> dozens of potential falsifiers, which anti-evolution activists
> shrewdly avoid like the plague:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
By "saltation", I mean radical macromutations, and genomics provides
no evidence of truly radical genomic rearrangements, a la Goldschmidt.
rev.goetz
I see no contradiction between my last two statements. And I think
that various genetics research suggests that complex molecular
tinkering has generated new biochemical systems such as the first TTSS
and the first eubacterial flagellum. And it would be an arbitrary
decision to categorize the magnitude of the respective macromutations.
snip
John Harshman
Nor do I. I just don't see any connection between them either.
> And I think
> that various genetics research suggests that complex molecular
> tinkering has generated new biochemical systems such as the first TTSS
> and the first eubacterial flagellum. And it would be an arbitrary
> decision to categorize the magnitude of the respective macromutations.
What macromutations?
rev.goetz
Okay, well many "Behe busters" (such as the TO FAQ) tend to indicate
that molecular tinkering helped to originate supposed IC systems. Some
of the molecular tinkering appears complex, but it definitely breaks
down the origin of the systems into smaller pieces than Behe admits.
>
> > And I think
> > that various genetics research suggests that complex molecular
> > tinkering has generated new biochemical systems such as the first TTSS
> > and the first eubacterial flagellum. And it would be an arbitrary
> > decision to categorize the magnitude of the respective macromutations.
>
> What macromutations?
Good question because we agree that any classification of a
macromutation is an arbitrary decision. I need to define my arbitrary
decision that all cases of molecular tinkering are macromutations.
John Harshman
You certainly need to do something. I have no idea what you're trying to
say, or why you're trying to say it. For one thing, I don't know what
you mean by "molecular tinkering", and I wasn't aware that you had
defined all such cases, whatever they are, as macromutations.
rev.goetz
> rev.goetzwrote:
> > How can we distinguish between "gradual evolution" and "saltation"?
>
> how is it reasonable to distinguish between them and "gradual" evolution, the
> way you do with your question?
>
> By analogy, adding a simple negation to a boolean argument is in one way a
> slight gradual change (adding a single symbol '¬') and in another, a huge change
> completely inversing the result.
>
> If you mean "how can we distinguish between there having been a set of species
> at one time in the pass which is somehow completely different from the set that
> exists now, with no natural mechanism to explain the transition from one to the
> other and there being such a mechanism?" the answer is simple. By formulating
> theories that provide a set of predictions (some call this "doing science") that
> allow for observations being made in support of them (or refuting them!). Like
> expecting there to be transitional fossils in terms of morphology, and there
> being a genetic similarities between all living things if indeed they are related.
I am only referring to individual mutational events with no reference
to speciation.
rev.goetz
Sorry that I did not define "molecular tinkering". I am using the
definition by Francois Jacob, "Molecular Tinkering and Evolution," in
D. S. Bendall, ed., Evolution from Molecules to Men, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 131-44.
Jacob's article describes the production of new molecular systems from
old molecular systems. For example, we have many examples of 2 or more
formerly disparate genes that suddenly started to work together to
form a new biochemical system.
Futuyma (1997) referred to this while he refuted Behe in a Boston
Globe review <http://bostonreview.net/BR22.1/futuyma.html>. I also see
that Futuyma describes exon shuffling and calls it a type of molecular
tinkering, which is not part of my definition of molecular tinkering.
I assume that each step of molecular tinkering is caused by a single
mutation.
And I arbitrarily classify that a single mutation is a macromutation
if it causes molecular tinkering that forms of a new biochemical
system.
And I said earlier that various genetics articles suggest that complex
molecular tinkering has generated new biochemical systems such as the
first TTSS and the first eubacterial flagellum. And it would be an
arbitrary decision to categorize the magnitude of the respective
macromutations. But some of this molecular tinkering may have been
complex enough to appear as a saltation event (not that this would
prove Behe's ID hypothesis).