Evolution; A challenge.

[copacetic]

Okay, I've read this article, and it is fantastic.

May I invite anyone who does not accept evolution to a challenge?

If you are willing to take up this challenge and respond to the questions I am about to ask, then you are someone worth having a good conversation with.

Now, my experience with most people who do not accept evolution, is the fact that they will refuse to answer the following questions. Almost every single one of them, just about without exception.

Are you going to do that as well?

If so, why? Why not just answer?

First, read this:

Only a theory.

This is such a common complaint about evolution that it deserves a page of it's own. This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. People who make statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," don't really know the meanings of the words their using.

Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.

The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."

Good stuff.

There is now absolutely no way in which there can be a misunderstanding about what a scientific theory is.

The Five Mechanisms of Evolution

All of these different processes can be operating at once within the same species. In addition, more than one occurrence of each of these five processes can be going on at the same time within a single species. There are 5 mechanisms of evolution, and I'm going to group them into 2 types-- two mechanisms that decrease genetic variation (Natural Selection and Genetic Drift), and three mechanisms that increase it (Mutation, Recombination and Gene Flow). I'll provide a brief explanation of each process, but you can find out much more about each by clicking the hyperlink. These links lead to more scientific, technical explanations.

Right, so if you object, please detail your objection to these five mechanisms:

1. Natural Selection
2. Genetic Drift
3. Mutation
4. Recombination
5. Gene Flow

If you are unable to provide a detailed explanation for why you do not accept any of these processes, then logic demands you realize you simply do not have the necessary knowledge to object to evolution.

Another thing:

A common non-scientific objection to evolution is that evolution can produce new varieties within a species, but the stage-by-stage transformation of one species into another is not possible. No reasons are ever given for this limitation, just that it can't happen. Well, I'd like a reason, please. All we ever get is the incorrect statement that macro-evolution has never been observed. (Yes, it has: Observed Instances of Speciation ) Enough with that. What, specifically, makes the evolution of new species impossible? What is this elusive limitation of which they speak?

The emergence of a new species takes many generations to happen. In most cases, the life span of species, especially large animals, is too long for us to observe changes directly. For very short-lived species such as insects and plants, the emergence of new species has been observed. (More Observed Instances of Speciation)

Also within the article is an absolutely crystal clear explanation of why there is no difference between micro and macro evolution, as well as the fact that the notion of species is just a human system of categorization, which is why for example:

here are variations within different types of dogs- but they are still dogs. But that is not saying a lot. There are more differences between a poodle and a German shepherd than in a German shepherd and a wolf-- but the wolf is categorized as a separate species. All such categorizations are done by humans... it is our decision what constitutes a separate species.

Another common objection, and a crystal clear explanation that cannot be sensibly refuted in any reasonable way, as far as I can tell:

If we evolved from apes, why are the apes still here?

Well, one reason that apes still exist is that we did not evolve from them. Modern apes and humans share a common ancestor. We did not evolve from any group of modern apes-- therefore apes are unaffected by human evolution. All of human evolution occurred after the split.

The belief that when a new species evolves, it must replace the original species is a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. It's just like you and your brother... you both do not necessarily share the same fate, do you? If your brother moves to another country, do his actions and descendants have any affect on you and yours? And just because you descended from your father does not mean that your father is dead. Dogs surely evolved from wolves, and there are still wolves.

If the new species gives the original species too much competition, the original species could be driven into extinction and be replaced by the new one. But there are many reasons why the new species might not replace the old one... such as relocating away from the old species, a change in the type of diet, an abundance of food. The original species can still continue to exist as long as it can make a living. Sometimes the new species replaces the old one; sometimes the old and new species both continue to exist. Another way to think about it is that a species is like a river. If that river branches off, there is no reason that both streams should go in the same direction.

After reading what is quoted below, please provide an explanation of why the fossil record clearly shows a progression of organisms from bottom to top that exactly mirror what would be predicted by evolutionary theory.

Not once, in the entire history of archaeology has a fossil been found in a layer it would not have been expected, and if one is, the theory is out the window.

The rocks don't lie:

The fossil record demonstrates unambiguously the continuous evolution of life. In the oldest and deepest levels of rock there are found no fossils at all. Above that are found the simplest forms of life-- bacterial fossils and invertebrates. Then above that are found vertebrate fish, and above that more complex creatures. Within the strata that contain the most primitive reptiles, you find no mammal or bird fossils- only reptiles, fish and invertebrates. In the strata that you first find mammals, they are found to be small, rodent-sized carnivores, unlike any living mammal... no large modern mammal types can be found. In the strata that contain Archaeopteryx, no types of modern birds are fossilized. In the level of the Australopithecine hominids, like Lucy, you can't find any Neandertal fossils. At the level where you uncover homo erectus fossils, there are no modern human remains. You never find people with dinosaurs, or dinosaurs with trilobites. It is very clear. There are no fossils found out of order. There are no paleontology discoveries that conflict with our understanding of how life evolved over the ages. Sure, we could have more examples of transitions, and I'm all for putting more paleontologists in the field to discover them. But consider this- in the big picture, nearly every species is a transition to another. Crocodiles haven't evolved much in the last 200 million years, but that's rare to find a species so well-fitted that it does not change over time. In this sense, nearly every fossil ever uncovered represents a transition to another species (except those species which resulted in extinction).

Here is the link to the article again.

So, to recap:

A Detailed objection to each of the 5 mechanisms:

1. Natural Selection
2. Genetic Drift
3. Mutation
4. Recombination
5. Gene Flow

• An explanation as to what inhibits macro evolution, but allows micro evolution.
• If you hold to the school of thought that says 'if we evolved from apes, then why do apes still exist?, then refute the explanation provided for this.
• An explanation of your objection to the perfect fossil record, which does not display any fossils in a layer where the theory says they could not be.

I think it would be perfectly fair after all that, to quite reasonably utterly disregard the opinion of anyone who has read this, not responded, yet still objects to evolution.

It is simple logic, (would anyone disagree?) that in order to sensibly object to evolution, all the questions posed above simply have to be answered.

Okay, only thing I have to ask, is that anyone who comments is polite to the point of nausea, religion is left out of this, unless it is an integral part of the objection to one of the questions, and that we all stick to the subject, big time. I will be pissed if this thread gets closed.

Cheers.

Two articles. Eight questions. Stop nitpicking FFS.

 

[Techne]

The claim that natural selection is a mechanism is a bit dubious.

Jerry Coyne (an evolutionary biologist) says it is NOT a mechanism. The Improbability Pump.

Allen MacNeill (another evolutionary biologist) also argues that it is not a mechanism (here). He cites another evolutionary biologist, John A Endler, who also argues it is not a mechanism. Read his book, Endler, J. Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton University Press, 1986.

Some people claim natural selection is a force or a cause (including Darwin). Whether this is metaphorical or meant to be taken literally is debatable.

Evolutionary biologists such Professor MacNeill and Professor John A. Endler do not think natural selection is a force. Instead they argue that it is an outcome of various causes. Professor William B. Provine at the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University does not think natural selection is a force. He writes in his book, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, citing Endler:

As John Endler has argued eloquently in Natural Selection in The Wild (1968), natural selection is not a mechanism. Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push or adjust. Natural selection does nothing. Natural selection as a natural force belongs in the insubstantial category already populated by the Becker/Stahl phlogiston (Endler 1986) or Newton's "ether". Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes.

Philosopher of science (biology), Andre Ariew and Philosopher of Biology, Mohan Matthen, argue that natural selection is not a cause.

Others argue natural selection is an outcome of causes or merely a descriptive term that describes what happens when you have individuals in a population that have some kind of variation (e.g. genetic) and fitness differences and are able to pass on their traits.

But let's assume Darwin and others following him were/are being literal when they describe[d] natural selection as a force or a causal factor. On this view, natural selection is prescriptive whereby natural selection is a cause or a force that "guides" the interaction or change of traits of biological entities, it "maintains" the prevalence of beneficial mutations, or "limits" or "favours" some variations over other variations, or "steers" biological change toward the local maxima in the "fitness landscape". On this view natural selection is an agent (albeit impersonal and blind, as in non-directional) that causally influences biological change by “maintaining” or “favouring” or “producing fitter” biological entities etc.

James Lennox argues that Darwin was a teleologist because of the fact that Darwin saw natural selection as some sort of force or cause that influences biological change or evolution. Andre Ariew, citing Lennox, in his article "Platonic and Aristotelian Roots of Teleological Arguments in Cosmology and Biology" writes:

How is natural selection a teleological "force"? I see remnants of two sorts of teleology operating in Darwin. The key to seeing both is within Darwin's concept of natural selection which can be summed up as follows: as a result of individuals possessing different heritable abilities striving to survive and reproduce in local environments, comes an explanation for changes in trait composition of populations through time. Traits become prevalent in populations because they are useful to organisms in their struggle to survive. Aristotle's functional teleology is preserved through the idea that an item's existence can be explained in terms of its usefulness (Lennox 1993). What makes a trait useful is that it provides certain individuals an advantage over others in their own struggle to survive and reproduce. Secondly, the concept of individual striving to survive and reproduce plays the fundamental role in Darwin's explanation for the origins of organic diversity. The same concept reminds us of Aristotle's formal teleology – the striving for self-preservation.

The prescriptive view of natural selection preserve Aristotle's final causality (teleology is summarized as "every agent acts for an end") in the sense that the final cause or natural end of natural selection is just that it tends to "maximize reproductive success in particular environmental niches" or "maintains" the prevalence of beneficial mutations, or "limits" or "favours" some variations over other variations, or "steers" biological change toward the local maxima in the "fitness landscape".

None of these people cited above (me included) deny evolution. They just don't use natural selection in a prescriptive manner or think it is a cause or force or mechanism.

 

[h0ll0w]

I've also never understood natural selection as an agent as such, it is just a word describing an effect.

 

[porchrat]

Come on guys please stop the semantics arguments. You don't like the word mechanism no problem substitute your own. We all know what is meant there so ultimately arguing over the appropriateness of that one word is pointless.

Respect the wishes of the OP. He asked that you answer the questions posed. If you aren't here to answer those questions please leave the thread clear to be addressed by those that are.

 

[Techne]

I've also never understood natural selection as an agent as such, it is just a word describing an effect.

You wouldn't be the only one. This is of course a common problem when people wish to discuss different concepts. People often use words or concepts with a specific meaning in mind and automatically assume that everyone else in the conversation understands the concept the way they do.

I think it is important for all parties involved in exchanging ideas, a conversation or a debate to have at least a proper definition of the concept or idea they are talking about. If the people in a conversation (on both sides) do not have a proper or clear definition or understanding of the concept they are talking about, then they are likely to talk passed each other.

People can have their own understanding and definition of a concept while their respective logic surrounding the concept may be sound. This of course is a problem. If people cannot settle on a proper definition before engaging in an argument or a debate or even a normal conversation, then there is no way any matter is going to be resolved. Each party will say the other is being illogical when in fact it is possible that both are logical, they just differ about the definition and thus talk passed each other without actually resolving anything.

This applies to an understanding of the concept of natural selection, cause, force, mechanism etc. It is unclear whether the OP uses natural selection in a prescriptive or descriptive manner and how his concept of "mechanism" is related to his view of natural selection. This is of course relevant to the questions being asked. The author assumes that natural selection is a mechanism but he also assumes everybody else understands the concept the way he does. Some might claim this is just a battle of semantics (negative connotation). I disagree, if people have differing views on a concept or differing definitions then there is in principle no way that something can be resolved or discussed. So it would be interesting how the OP views natural selection. Prescriptive or descriptive? And how is his concept of mechanism related to his view. As is, it appears that the OP is using natural selection in a prescriptive manner and the concept of mechanism is used in the sense that natural selection is a "causally active" mechanism and not just some descriptive term. And, as pointed out, such a view is dubious at best.

 

[porchrat]

None of this is necessary and you know it.

Just include a brief description (you shouldn't need more than a sentence or two) of what you understand natural selection to be in your post that tells us why you object to it. Problem solved. See, no need for this at all.

So please just do that. I beg you don't hijack this thread with this.

 

[h0ll0w]

A Detailed objection to each of the 5 mechanisms:

1. Natural Selection
2. Genetic Drift
3. Mutation
4. Recombination
5. Gene Flow

An explanation as to what inhibits macro evolution, but allows micro evolution.

Adding new information to the genome. DNA is the blueprint, it contains digitally encoded information which is read and then executed, all of the above effects are unable to add new/novel information to the genome. Duplicating/increasing/rearranging existing information is not adding new/novel information which would be needed to create novel biological structures.

With cases of speciation the conclusion is clear if following observational science. Speciation will not produce radical biological structure dissimilarity resulting in a different animal, such is needed to support molecules-to-man evolution, but rather deeply unique and wide-ranging phenotype diversity of structures that constitute specific kinds of animals.
Beyond phenotype expression, any other conclusion will not suffice but rely on extrapolation that assumes deep time.

http://creationwiki.org/Speciation#Evolutionary_potential

If you hold to the school of thought that says 'if we evolved from apes, then why do apes still exist?, then refute the explanation provided for this.

I am not of that school of thought, I understand the reasoning behind why there would be apes.

Ultimately though, I am actually of the "school of thought" that we did not evolve from any animal.

I think it would be perfectly fair after all that, to quite reasonably utterly disregard the opinion of anyone who has read this, not responded, yet still objects to evolution.

It is simple logic, (would anyone disagree?) that in order to sensibly object to evolution, all the questions posed above simply have to be answered.

Okay, only thing I have to ask, is that anyone who comments is polite to the point of nausea, religion is left out of this, unless it is an integral part of the objection to one of the questions, and that we all stick to the subject, big time. I will be pissed if this thread gets closed.

I know I replied, and I didn't have to, but what makes you so special that you demand that nobody come spoil your thread ? I don't think it is simple logic to answer all of these questions, before you can object to evolution at all. When you raise a valid problem with evolution and its creative powers these things do not necessarily have any bearing on the issue at hand.

Herp-derp'ers who disagree with what is being posted when it is not evolution, always insist on ****ting all over a thread with their retarded one liners and links to irrelevant pics.

 

[bin3]

Adding new information to the genome. DNA is the blueprint, it contains digitally encoded information which is read and then executed, all of the above effects are unable to add new/novel information to the genome. Duplicating/increasing/rearranging existing information is not adding new/novel information which would be needed to create novel biological structures.

The alphabet has 26 letters. You don't add new letters and characters as required, but can you honestly say nothing new or novel is written ever?

So why can't DNA ?

 

[Techne]

None of this is necessary and you know it.

Just include a brief description (you shouldn't need more than a sentence or two) of what you understand natural selection to be in your post that tells us why you object to it. Problem solved. See, no need for this at all.

So please just do that. I beg you don't hijack this thread with this.

I disagree, I think it is important that all people in a conversation are clear on what they are talking about. In other words, people should make clear what their understanding of a concept is when they wish to discuss it. I answered to the OP by providing a DETAILED objecting to the view that natural selection is a mechanism or a prescriptive term. I think I was pretty clear that I support the view that natural selection is a descriptive term and not a prescriptive term. Descriptive in the sense that natural selection is merely a descriptive term that describes what happens when you have individuals in a population that have some kind of variation (e.g. genetic) and fitness differences and are able to pass on their traits.

I am not hijacking the thread, you are being disingenuous. Please stop.

 

[Techne]

Adding new information to the genome. DNA is the blueprint, it contains digitally encoded information which is read and then executed, all of the above effects are unable to add new/novel information to the genome. Duplicating/increasing/rearranging existing information is not adding new/novel information which would be needed to create novel biological structures.

The nylonase gene appears to be new information to me.

 

[porchrat]

I disagree, I think it is important for that all people in a conversation are clear on what they are talking about. In other words, people should make clear what their understanding is of a concept they wish to discuss. I answered to the OP by providing a DETAILED objecting to the view that natural selection is a mechanism or a prescriptive term. I think I was pretty clear that I support the view that natural selection is a descriptive term and not a prescriptive term. Descriptive in the sense that natural selection is merely a descriptive term that describes what happens when you have individuals in a population that have some kind of variation (e.g. genetic) and fitness differences and are able to pass on their traits.

I am not hijacking the thread, you are being disingenuous. Please stop.

OK great it is a descriptive term instead of a prescriptive term. Oh look animals still don't reproduce if they're unfit regardless. OK ... this was pointless.

Moving on.

 

[h0ll0w]

The alphabet has 26 letters. You don't add new letters and characters as required, but can you honestly say nothing new or novel is written ever?

So why can't DNA ?

The difference being that an intelligence is manipulating the words of the alphabet to create a novel.

The novel could not come about on its own or by chance, partly because a novel is not just the ink particles on the paper.

 

[bin3]

The difference being that an intelligence is manipulating the words of the alphabet to create a novel.

The novel could not come about on its own or by chance, partly because a novel is not just the ink particles on the paper.

I'm sorry, in my view that's just blatantly false.

As justification I would use something like http://www.jesse-anderson.com/2011/10/a-few-million-monkeys-randomly-recreate-every-work-of-shakespeare/

Less Technical Explanation
Instead of having real monkeys typing on keyboards, I have virtual, computerized monkeys that output random gibberish. This is supposed to mimic a monkey randomly mashing the keys on a keyboard. The computer program I wrote compares that monkey’s gibberish to every work of Shakespeare to see if it actually matches a small portion of what Shakespeare wrote. If it does match, the portion of gibberish that matched Shakespeare is marked with green in the images below to show it was found by a monkey. The table below shows the exact number of characters and percentage the monkeys have found in Shakespeare. The parts of Shakespeare that have not been found are colored white. This process is repeated over and over until the monkeys have created every work of Shakespeare through random gibberish.

No intelligence needed: Just trial and error and a lot of time.

 

[TJ99]

Stick to the bloody topic please. The second line says:

May I invite anyone who does not accept evolution to a challenge?

It doesn't say: Even people who do accept evolution are welcome to come and post walls of quotes and make ridiculous semantic arguments. If you do accept evolution, please leave the thread alone. If you don't, please answer the 7 (or 8 depending on your arguments) questions. Simple.

 

[porchrat]

Stick to the bloody topic please. The second line says:

It doesn't say: Even people who do accept evolution are welcome to come and post walls of quotes and make ridiculous semantic arguments. If you do accept evolution, please leave the thread alone. If you don't, please answer the 7 (or 8 depending on your arguments) questions. Simple.

+1. Thanks guys this would be much appreciated.

 

[Apache]

I have a question about evolution.

The question is why would the first plants even need to evolve if they were perfectly suited to their surroundings? If you look at lichen, it survives almost everywhere. Why evolve from lichens to other plants when lichens are tougher and hardier and almost perfectly adapted to their surroundings? It doesn't make sense.

I appears to go against natural selection.

If plants evolved from lichens why are there still lichens? (this is meant to be a joke)

 

[h0ll0w]

I'm sorry, in my view that's just blatantly false.

As justification I would use something like http://www.jesse-anderson.com/2011/10/a-few-million-monkeys-randomly-recreate-every-work-of-shakespeare/



No intelligence needed: Just trial and error and a lot of time.

Here the difference is that a target was specified beforehand, the simulated monkeys didn't create a novel. That said, I can't really picture how you can claim that you have accurately "simulated" a million monkeys bashing a million keyboards.

And once again, a book is more than just the ink particles on the paper.

 

[bin3]

I would like to answer, but I accept evolution as truth and therefor am not allowed to post here.

 

[h0ll0w]

Come on guys please stop the semantics arguments. You don't like the word mechanism no problem substitute your own. We all know what is meant there so ultimately arguing over the appropriateness of that one word is pointless.

Respect the wishes of the OP. He asked that you answer the questions posed. If you aren't here to answer those questions please leave the thread clear to be addressed by those that are.

What have you contributed to this thread so far ? Only thing you, DJ... and TJ99 have achieved so far is to spread discord.

Copacetic can inform us when we are out of line, so far only relevant points have been discussed.

Oh and on "not liking" the word mechanism : It makes all the difference! Natural selection did not cause the predator to pick the white moth off the black tree, it simply did not detect the black moth on the black tree, so only the black moths survived. In the same breath the black moth did not consciously do something to turn black and thwart the predator!

Therefore, as far as I can see, Natural selection is nothing more than a word describing an effect.

 

[Techne]

@ h0ll0w re the information question.

If you look at the bacteria that are capable of metabolising nylon. 200 years there was no nylon in nature. Now there are enzymes that can break down amide bonds and to some degree nylon. What happened in bacteria that can degrade nylon more efficiently is the mutation of a few key amino acid bonds in the active area of these common amidases. In other words, information was added into the genomes of these organisms, information that increased the efficiency of these enzymes.

The cause of these mutations may be that it is as a result of some stress-induced mechanism or just as a result of the replication machinery not copying the correct nucleic acid during cell division etc.

Mutations are able to add new or different information to the genome of an organism. We have these bacteria now and we know more or less which enzymes underwent mutations.