Evolution; A challenge.

[Chicken Boo]

What I don't grasp is the split from the first anchestor organism/s into the different orders. Today we have bacteria,insects,mammals, oak trees etc. - all of this from a single sell organism over time....Speciation to this extent is not an easily understood concept.

Your point of trouble is more likely concepts of time. A million years is not an easy concept for a human to grasp, several hundred million is obviously even harder, and billions... I'm not sure anyone could truly conceive what a massive amount of time that is.

But I'll suggest an example to try illustrate how quickly variation can occur, and how extreme it can be: you may have heard of a thing called DOS - Microsoft's first product. If not, go do some research on what it was all about, how it looked, operated and was capable of. Now compare it with Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008. They're all clearly related products, but each very different. This "speciation" also occurred on a very short time scale. Would you expect the Windows version in 10 years time to be recognisable? In 50 years?
Now if you could somehow mentally extrapolate this to animals and massive amounts of time, you'll have your understanding.

 

[alloytoo]

You people are wasting your time. He isn't going to respond to logic or evidence. This is an rza mindset with fancier words.

I do feel it's important correct the most egregious misrepresentations in simple concise language (simpler the better) for those who might follow.

I gave up all hope of honest debate after the unashamed quotemining.

 

[alloytoo]

Your point of trouble is more likely concepts of time. A million years is not an easy concept for a human to grasp, several hundred million is obviously even harder, and billions... I'm not sure anyone could truly conceive what a massive amount of time that is.

But I'll suggest an example to try illustrate how quickly variation can occur, and how extreme it can be: you may have heard of a thing called DOS - Microsoft's first product. If not, go do some research on what it was all about, how it looked, operated and was capable of. Now compare it with Windows 7, and Windows Server 2008. They're all clearly related products, but each very different. This "speciation" also occurred on a very short time scale. Would you expect the Windows version in 10 years time to be recognisable? In 50 years?
Now if you could somehow mentally extrapolate this to animals and massive amounts of time, you'll have your understanding.

The fossil record is like an old hand drawn cartoon. Each frame in isolation is a snapshot of the whole.

A single frame tells very little, two frames only a little more. As the number of frames increases the story becomes clearer. We may not have every single frame, but we have a general gist of the story.

More importantly two consecutive frames (like two consecutive generations) look almost identical, but frames far apart highlight great change despite it being incrimental in tiny hops rather than great leaps.

 

[SanchoP]

@Forrest
Can I ask you a quick side question, what do you make of the thousands of different dog species that evolved (or mutated) from wolves ~10 000 years ago? Is that evolution or just 'creationist mutation' (sorry that might be the wrong phrase, I haven't gone back to look). Please give me your view... I know they're currently interbreed-able, but in another couple of thousand years when they aren't any more? Will they have evolved then?

 

[alloytoo]

@Forrest
Can I ask you a quick side question, what do you make of the thousands of different dog species that evolved (or mutated) from wolves ~10 000 years ago? Is that evolution or just 'creationist mutation' (sorry that might be the wrong phrase, I haven't gone back to look). Please give me your view... I know they're currently interbreed-able, but in another couple of thousand years when they aren't any more? Will they have evolved then?

Genetically they're compatable, but is a miniture doberman really able to breed with a wolf?

It's an extreme example granted, but in reality most dogs are extremely unlikely to breed with a wolf, primarily by reason of population isolation. (Said miniture is unable to escape your yard)

PS: your question is moot, how could dogs exist before the planet

 

[SanchoP]

Well I decided to give him the interbreeding thing because I'm sure that would be his first argument anyway.

He's not a YEC is he?

 

[Forrest]

So one can see how new information was introduced via a few point mutations. This increased the enzyme's capability to degrade nylon without affecting its esterase activity. Sure, you might say it is a change in existing information, but one can argue that any change would result in new information from one moment to another depending of course how one defines information (definitional problem again). Is information constant in the universe, does it change as the universe changes?

That is an interesting way to look at it. If you view increased activity without affecting existing capability as addition of information that is one way to see it. The question should then really be if this is of any novel value. For the bacteria it may be the difference between life and death in an environment with nylon as the main food source and the first reaction would be that it is. But carefully looking at it it doesn't really matter what the food source is so it becomes specialisation of an existing novelty.

If we look at other capabilities of organisms we see a lot of novelty - structures that aid in a specific purpose. Tails are used for flight and wings to create lift. The cambrian explosion shows a variety of structures with no indication of how they got there in the space of as little as 5-10million years. These then become building blocks for organisms that come after them instead of just changing into slightly different ones.

This is seen as evidence that they evolved but common features can just as easily be seen for common design rather than common descent. If we see a new type of car on the road e.g. we don't go to the conclusion that it was modified from an existing car but from certain features it can be determined who the manufacturer is and that it was built in a factory using parts designed and made separately in their own factory.

Random mutation produces characteristics which are filtered by the environment.

The finch beak is not an example of such random mutations. The mutations found are 3 bases of the cyt c sequence in 2 of the finch species (The Beak of the Finch p. 217, Jonathan Weiner, 1994). Cytochrome c is involved in the electron transport chain in mitochondria. It's as essential component for life, a non-neutral mutation here would kill the bird. The variation occurs as a result of existing genes. This is not inconsistent with the creation model that allows such variation within kinds.

I said "could lead to speciation". In this context I meant would lead to a separate population which for a variety of reasons wouldn't be able to naturally breed.

This definition is obviously flawed, especially in terms of the TOE. As portions of the populations diverge the inability to breed is based constraints which are not genetic, constraints which are physical or environmental.

Wolphin's by the way do not constitute a species, the two known examples are hybrids.

You rely on speciation to show that if it can change into another specie it can change into any specie. Without considering how flawed this is as there can be any number of unknown limits there's actually no single definition of species. The wolphin is a hybrid between a bottlenose dolphin and a false killer whale. Although both are separate species and genuses wolphins have proven fertile. A gene mutation in a snail causes the shell to spiral in a different direction so they won't mate with each other where they should actually be classified as the same specie. Then we have the fertile mule mares. This indicates a lack of understanding on what a species is.

Interesting post. It suggests to me you actually have a pretty good grasp on this matter, and simply won't admit it is correct (and change a few inconvenient facts to support you - such as the bolded bit).

Regarding that bolded bit, are you suggesting that no genes ever develop along the way? They're all there from the start, and are simply activated or used according to the organism's level of development?

I'm not changing any "facts" and there's no determination of what is "correct." At best it is a frame shift mutation. Though even that is disputed but no new gene was made and the old one was simply replaced. Even if new genes can develop it would appear that there are far more changes in key areas than evolution can account for. I know you will bring up the millions of years again. Looking only at the human genome in number of changes and not percentage even that timeframe appears to be too short. Shall we move on and discuss the cambrian explosion then?

@Forrest
Can I ask you a quick side question, what do you make of the thousands of different dog species that evolved (or mutated) from wolves ~10 000 years ago? Is that evolution or just 'creationist mutation' (sorry that might be the wrong phrase, I haven't gone back to look). Please give me your view... I know they're currently interbreed-able, but in another couple of thousand years when they aren't any more? Will they have evolved then?

The dog is actually an interesting example of that resistance to evolution you keep asking would prevent macro-evolution. With thousands of years of selective breeding and over a hundred breeds it is still the same specie and not even close to a different genus or family. They all have traits that are indicative of it being a dog or more specifically a wolf. Despite the largest apparent differences of probably any species they still don't show much variation. This supports the biblical kind designation of each animal breeding only with its own kind and created kinds changing enough to breed is probably impossible as well.

Now answer this question for me please. In all the cases where genes were copied or inserted into a part of the genome how many times have they been beneficial or do they always have a negative or even a detrimental effect?

 

[Forrest]

You people are wasting your time. He isn't going to respond to logic or evidence. This is an rza mindset with fancier words.

You see this is where the problem is. You assume there's only one version of logic and that evidence is a written note of what is and what isn't. These are only a few assumptions in a very long list of which any or all could be wrong. All evidence is interpreted by individuals with their own belief structures of what they already consider to be the truth. Another assumption is that your logic is the correct version but it could easily be the incorrect one. Not acknowledging these facts make your logic even more flawed actually. This leaves you with no objective way to present the evidence and you resort to ad hominems and personal attacks in an attemp to try and show that the other position should not be believed based on the same personal biases you present. People are converting to the logic of christianity left, right and centre when they see this so we should actually be thanking you.

I do feel it's important correct the most egregious misrepresentations in simple concise language (simpler the better) for those who might follow.

I gave up all hope of honest debate after the unashamed quotemining.

And here is another claim of that "superior" knowledge with very little yet to show for it. Followed your blog post so saw what this "quotemining" is all about. You seem to be under the impression here that any part of a larger sentence is a "quotemine" that you can just quote a larger piece and "win" the argument. The correct term here is actually quoting out of context. In a sense ALL quotes are actually out of context. What's important to consider is whether or not quoting something changes its central meaning. Here's some examples:

1. Peter overhears a discussion that John is having with Paul. John is saying that it's usually a good time to invest in a company if stock prices have fallen in anticipation of them rising again. He continues: "like our company's stock had fallen by 30% just last month." Peter runs to Sally and tells her that she should invest in their company as John told Paul it's a good time to invest when stocks had fallen like they did last month by 30%. However Peter never heard the rest of John's sentence: "but they also went up this month by 40%."
This is out of context as John has said it's good to invest when stock prices fall but he was making the point that it would have been a good time to invest last month when they fell and not this month after they went up again. This changes the context.
Another example would be when someone is clearly being sarcastic but when only the sentence with the opposite meaning of what they wanted to convey is quoted.

2. Sam is talking to Henry: "It is strange to spell ventriloquist as v-e-n-t-r-i-l-o-q-u-i-s-t. I think it should rather be spelt as v-e-n-t-r-i-l-u-k-w-i-s-t."
Henry is talking to Sylvia: "I think we should rather spell ventriloquist as v-e-n-t-r-i-l-i-k-w-i-s-t, Sam also says it's strange to spell it as v-e-n-t-r-i-l-o-q-u-i-s-t."
Though Henry is using Sam's statement to support his own spelling of the word he's NOT quoting her out of context. Sam may have a different spelling than him of the word in mind but it is nontheless true that she thinks it's strange to spell it the way it's spelt. Her idea of how it should be spelt does not change the central meaning of the quoted sentence even though her purpose for saying it is different.

Are you still convinced something was quoted out of context or are you merely aggrieved because it can also be used to support a different argument than the author used it for?

 

[alloytoo]

The finch beak is not an example of such random mutations. The mutations found are 3 bases of the cyt c sequence in 2 of the finch species (The Beak of the Finch p. 217, Jonathan Weiner, 1994). Cytochrome c is involved in the electron transport chain in mitochondria. It's as essential component for life, a non-neutral mutation here would kill the bird. The variation occurs as a result of existing genes.

All bird beaks are ultimately the result of random mutation filtered by the environment.

Quoting Carl Wieland's review without attribution doesn't make you clever. It makes you appear conceited and dishonest.

This is not inconsistent with the creation model that allows such variation within kinds.

Define "kinds"

You rely on speciation to show that if it can change into another specie it can change into any specie. Without considering how flawed this is as there can be any number of unknown limits there's actually no single definition of species.

There is no single definition of species because life changes from generation to generation. Historically species were defined based on morphological differences at a particular point in time. Current species by those present today, historical species by the snap shot provided by fossils.

The wolphin is a hybrid between a bottlenose dolphin and a false killer whale. Although both are separate species and genuses wolphins have proven fertile.

There is only one known Wolphin in existance. It's offspring is only one quarter false killer whale.

A gene mutation in a snail causes the shell to spiral in a different direction so they won't mate with each other where they should actually be classified as the same specie. Then we have the fertile mule mares. This indicates a lack of understanding on what a species is.

No this indicates a lack of definitiveness in what a species is, due to the ever changing nature of life.

 

[alloytoo]

And here is another claim of that "superior" knowledge with very little yet to show for it.

blah blah snipped

Are you still convinced something was quoted out of context or are you merely aggrieved because it can also be used to support a different argument than the author used it for?

I'm convinced you that you didn't know it was a quotemine before you posted it (given your sources), and now you're trying to dishonestly justify your ignorance.

Tells us more than we need to know really.

 

[Forrest]

All bird beaks are ultimately the result of random mutation filtered by the environment.

Quoting Carl Wieland's review without attribution doesn't make you clever. It makes you appear conceited and dishonest.

You accusing me of plagiarising? Firstly it was not a quote. Secondly it's from Jonathan Weiner's book which I did cite to support the fact. The rest is actually known from multiple sources. You yourself don't mention where you get every "fact" of your knowledge from so accusing me of doing the same would be intellectually dishonest. Thirdly I did link to Carl Weiland's review earlier.

Define "kinds"

Any creatures that can mate with each other (artificially or naturally) and produce offspring. Would appear to be roughly equivalent to the taxonomical classification of family.

There is only one known Wolphin in existance. It's offspring is only one quarter false killer whale.

Would appear there's two actually. None of this matters however. The fact it's fertile illustrates the species problem as it's not supposed to be possible with the most commonly used definition of a specie. The fertile mules are another problem.

I'm convinced you that you didn't know it was a quotemine before you posted it (given your sources), and now you're trying to dishonestly justify your ignorance.

Tells us more than we need to know really.

Exactly what I though. You're convinced a quotemine is just a larger part of a quote. That would make almost anything one. It doesn't prove anything as you have to show that it's central meaning is definitely changed for it to be quoted out of context.

 

[alloytoo]

You accusing me of plagiarising? Firstly it was not a quote. Secondly it's from Jonathan Weiner's book which I did cite to support the fact. The rest is actually known from multiple sources. You yourself don't mention where you get every "fact" of your knowledge from so accusing me of doing the same would be intellectually dishonest. Thirdly I did link to Carl Weiland's review earlier.

You're not fooling anyone.

Any creatures that can mate with each other (artificially or naturally) and produce offspring. Would appear to be roughly equivalent to the taxonomical classification of family.

Baraminology is considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community, as the evidence for common ancestry of all life has widespread scientific acceptance. The system for representing biological diversity widely applied in modern biology is based on evolutionary relationships as determined by cladistics and other phylogenetic methods. Proposed phylogenies of organisms are hypotheses of relationships that are objectively testable.

This is the science subsection, pseudoscience is better discussed in PD.

Would appear there's two actually.

Ah no.

There is only one Wolphin. It's off-spring is half Wolphin half Dolphin, making it only one quarter False Killer Whale

None of this matters however. The fact it's fertile illustrates the species problem as it's not supposed to be possible with the most commonly used definition of a specie. The fertile mules are another problem.

Which, as I've explained is not a problem for the theory of evolution, it is a limitation of our centuries old classification system. In short it's an issue of semantics.

Exactly what I though. You're convinced a quotemine is just a larger part of a quote. That would make almost anything one. It doesn't prove anything as you have to show that it's central meaning is definitely changed for it to be quoted out of context.

A quotemine presents and supports a position which is justiposed to that of the author. It is a misrepresentation, it is false witness, it is lying.

It is, in the words of Daffy Duck, "Dispicable".

ETA:

I'd like to apologise to the OP for this derailment. I don't automatically assume "dispicable" behavour, having now recognised I shall refrain from further comment.

 

[SanchoP]

I'm still struggling to see how the difficulty in defining species in any way supports either creationism or evolution, it's just the relic of a taxonomic system that was designed before we knew that there are no inherent discrete separations between animals it's just a happy continuum of life.

@Forrest again,
I have one last little thing to say. You can go around bashing bits of evidence all over the place, heck you can spend your whole life showing that millions of facts don't support evolution, but the fact will remain that over 150 years ago, Darwin was able to come to the same inevitable conclusion of evolution with natural selection based on the scantiest portion of what we know today. No other way of looking at the life around us makes sense.

So until you can actually disprove evolution (and there would be thousands of ways to do so, for instance: find an instance of irreducible complexity, or find animals that can in no way have evolved from a common ancestor, or find a rabbit in the Precambrian, or show that there hasn't been enough time or or or) it is by far the best explanation that we have.

Also, I notice you still haven't furnished us with your own theory? Or are you going to focus on destroying the evilutionists, while avoiding the fact that your theory is probably (and I'm guessing, correct me if I'm wrong) based on an outdated fairytale written by Jewish tribesmen...

 

[copacetic]

ETA:

I'd like to apologise to the OP for this derailment. I don't automatically assume "dispicable" behavour, having now recognised I shall refrain from further comment.

Rather some sort of discussion, rather than no discussion at all. Who is 'derailing' matters should be obvious to any astute viewer...

 

[alloytoo]

Also, I notice you still haven't furnished us with your own theory? Or are you going to focus on destroying the evilutionists, while avoiding the fact that your theory is probably (and I'm guessing, correct me if I'm wrong) based on an outdated fairytale [-]written[/-] plagerised by Jewish tribesmen...

Sorry minor correction

 

[alloytoo]

Rather some sort of discussion, rather than no discussion at all. Who is 'derailing' matters should be obvious to any astute viewer...

Selection is a fascinating discussion.

 

[Forrest]

This is the science subsection, pseudoscience is better discussed in PD.

Oh great. So now it is presupposed that anything not following the current classification based on the already accepted idea of common descent must also be pseudoscience. Please go on illustrating the unobjectivity.

Ah no.

There is only one Wolphin. It's off-spring is half Wolphin half Dolphin, making it only one quarter False Killer Whale

And where do you think a wolphin that is half wolphin comes from. As I said it doesn't matter as wolphins are not supposed to be fertile.

Which, as I've explained is not a problem for the theory of evolution, it is a limitation of our centuries old classification system. In short it's an issue of semantics.

You rely on the premise that if one specie can change into another it can change into any specie. You must then be able to clearly define what a specie is first otherwise.... oh wait that's right if a bacteria can mutate one gene it can eventually become a human.

A quotemine presents and supports a position which is justiposed to that of the author. It is a misrepresentation, it is false witness, it is lying.

It is, in the words of Daffy Duck, "Dispicable".

ETA:

I'd like to apologise to the OP for this derailment. I don't automatically assume "dispicable" behavour, having now recognised I shall refrain from further comment.

Definition of contextomy: The practice, or act of quoting people out of context, with the aim of winning an argument.
Alloytoo's definition of quote mining: Oh no they are using our words against us again better quickly accuse them of lying.

Quote mining is not recognised by formal dictionaries. It's use became widespread during the 90's in the creation-evolution debate. Evolutionists are paranoid about the fact that creationists will assemble "large volumes" of quotes by fellow evolutionists and proponents of evolution to show that belief in evolution is either illogical or not supported by the evidence. Of course this is perfectly acceptable in ordinary society and often the only way to show something is to use the words of somebody that holds a different position. Contextomy is to remove ideas from surrounding texts to distort their meaning but this is not what the evolutionist refers to. Creationists freely admit that the people quoted said the quoted text to support a different view. Evolutionists however have a problem that the facts may sometimes also be used to support a different view. They think of this as lying and misrepresenting the author but that is rubbish.

Gould is a good example. He has stated many times that the fossil record doesn't support the Darwinian theory of evolution and that it shows few if any gradual changes. Most archeologists would admit the same. His objection and that of his fellow "disciples" is that he only raises that to support his idea. That is inconsequential. Nobody is claiming he supports creation and indeed it's freely acknowledged that he proposes his "fast unseen evolution in the gaps" idea to explain away the evidence against evolution. Regardless the evidence is there and he admits to it!

There's an old saying that you can't unring a bell. There's a lesson to be learned that if you don't want the inadequacies of your theory to constantly be used against you then perhaps you just shouldn't talk about them, AT ALL!!!

I'm still struggling to see how the difficulty in defining species in any way supports either creationism or evolution, it's just the relic of a taxonomic system that was designed before we knew that there are no inherent discrete separations between animals it's just a happy continuum of life.

I think this part has already been explained enough. If you use something to support your argument it just seems rational that you can define it properly first. But whatever, I won't accept any example of speciation again as it's apparently only semantics. Will remember these posts to support this. A "quote mine" if you will...

I have one last little thing to say. You can go around bashing bits of evidence all over the place, heck you can spend your whole life showing that millions of facts don't support evolution, but the fact will remain that over 150 years ago, Darwin was able to come to the same inevitable conclusion of evolution with natural selection based on the scantiest portion of what we know today. No other way of looking at the life around us makes sense.

At least Darwin had the legitimate excuse of an incomplete fossil record. This is no longer the case. Nice of you to admit that Darwin had practically no evidence yet still believed in his hypothesis. A good example of the predisposition plaguing "science" even to this day. Are you aware that Darwin's work has been estimated to contain no fewer that 700 suppositions? Don't ask me to provide proof of this in light of the precious little that has been provided here for evolution out of the supposed "masses of evidence" for it. Just continue to believe in something that doesn't make sense for a lot of people.

So until you can actually disprove evolution (and there would be thousands of ways to do so, for instance: find an instance of irreducible complexity, or find animals that can in no way have evolved from a common ancestor, or find a rabbit in the Precambrian, or show that there hasn't been enough time or or or) it is by far the best explanation that we have.

Iow disprove what you have failed to prove. The best explanation for you also isn't always necessarily THE best explanation for everybody else.

Also, I notice you still haven't furnished us with your own theory? Or are you going to focus on destroying the evilutionists, while avoiding the fact that your theory is probably [snip inflammatory garbage]

I also noticed you avoided my question about the large scale beneficial mutations. The subject is to show why evolution shouldn't have to be believed. That has been demonstrated well enough throughout. But by all means continue to ask for proof of something that isn't claimed to be proven/provable instead of providing proof of something that's claimed to be proven and "a far better explanation."

 

[Techne]

That is an interesting way to look at it. If you view increased activity without affecting existing capability as addition of information that is one way to see it. The question should then really be if this is of any novel value. For the bacteria it may be the difference between life and death in an environment with nylon as the main food source and the first reaction would be that it is. But carefully looking at it it doesn't really matter what the food source is so it becomes specialisation of an existing novelty.

True, but a mutation resulted in the specialization or increased activity of the enzyme without negatively affecting other functions.

If we look at other capabilities of organisms we see a lot of novelty - structures that aid in a specific purpose. Tails are used for flight and wings to create lift. The cambrian explosion shows a variety of structures with no indication of how they got there in the space of as little as 5-10million years. These then become building blocks for organisms that come after them instead of just changing into slightly different ones.

This is seen as evidence that they evolved but common features can just as easily be seen for common design rather than common descent. If we see a new type of car on the road e.g. we don't go to the conclusion that it was modified from an existing car but from certain features it can be determined who the manufacturer is and that it was built in a factory using parts designed and made separately in their own factory.

The Cambrian explosion is interesting. If you look a the current evidence, genes for multicellularity where present a million years before multicellular organisms where present.
For example, the hedghehog signalling pathway plays a fundamental role in cell patterning, cell proliferation and participates in the development of tissues and organs during the stages of animal development. It exerts its effect by influencing the transcription of many target genes in a concentration dependent manner (see here). Many of the components of the signalling pathway are present in various bacterial and archaeal lineages, indicating that they emerges before multicellularity.

You find all kinds of preadaptations (see here). Also check out Mike Gene's (a pseudonym) blog for interesting discussions and research.

Btw, if you quote someone without misrepresenting their position it is not a quotemine. Claims of "quotemine" are usually just an attempt to distract from the actual issues at hand as well as veiled ad hominems. And such claims are usually done by people who don't mind quotemines that support their view or they also quotemine e.g. from the Bible. Ignore it, be the better person and just focus on the actual issues. Don't get distracted.

 

[Techne]

I think this part has already been explained enough. If you use something to support your argument it just seems rational that you can define it properly first. But whatever, I won't accept any example of speciation again as it's apparently only semantics. Will remember these posts to support this.

Lol, anti-intellectualism at its best. It is strange how people can claim that speciation has been observed but understand that there is no universally accepted definition of a "species" and in the same breath claim that it is a semantics problem or "a relic of a taxonomic system that was designed before we knew that there are no inherent discrete separations between animals it's just a happy continuum of life". The same for the claim that defining natural selection is merely a semantics problem.

 

[SanchoP]

@Techne,
How is that anti-intellectualism? I'm just admitting that there are no inherent discrete separations between animals (a self-evident conclusion of evolution) and that the terms 'species' and 'speciation' can therefore not have any properly defined meaning. But we use them anyway, without defining exactly what they mean, because they are convenient. We can't define exactly what speciation is, but any thinking person can see that it happens.

@Forrest,
Yes, Darwin made hundreds of suppositions, that was my point. He came to the only logical conclusion and since he lacked data, he interpolated where necessary.

And I don't quite get what you're saying, but the onus isn't on me to prove the theory of evolution. That's impossible, but so far, it fits all the data and makes all the right predictions. So that's good enough for science. And sorry, I missed your question about large scale beneficial mutations, could you please repeat it?

One last thing: have a look at the gif below. Could you tell me which parts are 'creationist adaptation' and which 'Darwinian evolution'.