Evolution; A challenge.

[porchrat]

Until you start labelling erosion or natural selection a force. which it is not therefore it cannot direct or create anything.

If you refuse acknowledge that, you are categorically wrong.

Uh yes... who here said it was a force?

At most it is a collection of forces... if you want to call the myriad of environmental pressures that all get grouped together under the label we call "natural selection" forces...

I still don't see your point... on this particular topic (I use this word in it's broadest possible sense) never have.

 

[copacetic]

Here is how Natural Selection works:

1. More organisms are born than can survive.

2. Offspring are similar, but not identical to their parents. Every batch of offspring contains a natural range of genetic variation. Genetic variation is produced in several ways, as discussed below. Changes in the genetic code, most of the time, are either harmful to an organism or neutral to it. However, there are rare instances where such changes can be helpful to the survival of an organism. Changes in the genetics of a species can bring about physical changes which give a survival advantage to the species, allowing it to continue when other species cannot.

3. Nature "selects" the characteristics that are most effective for the conditions, and that species survives. Selective forces drive physical change. Selective forces are not "forces" like gravity, but factors that effect how many organisms live and how many die. The reason lions are so fast and powerful is that their prey is so swift and elusive. (Because any slow and weak lions would not be able to survive long enough to reproduce). The reason antelopes are so swift and elusive is because lions are so fast and powerful. (Because any slow antelopes, and any that lack the instinct to run in a zig-zag pattern, would not survive long enough to reproduce.) There are other types of selective forces: climate changes and food supply changes will eliminate any organisms which aren't well suited for survival; sexual selection is the reason male peacocks have enormous tail feathers, and why deer and moose have huge antlers-- peacocks with small feathers and moose with little antlers don't get to mate with the females. Selective pressure is any factor that makes it hard for some organisms to continue surviving, and rewards any advantage that some organisms may have been born with.

4. Over millions of years, successive generations of genetic variations, which give survival enhancements, bring about new species. Thousands of generations of small changes result in a species that can look very different from the one that it came from.

NOTE: Species evolve-- individual organisms do not. Creatures don't "change" from one thing into another... they remain as they were born. Organisms do not choose to evolve-- favorable traits are chosen by the survival of the creature; less efficient characteristics are eliminated by the deaths of organisms. Within a species, there is a predictable range of possible traits, and a guaranteed chance of random mutations. Any trait that provides a survival advantage is preserved into the next generation, but a trait that is harmful to an individual results in the death of that individual.

I'm not sure what you people are arguing about, given that the article was pretty ****ing clear about this issue.

Is there anything at all in this description that's difficult to understand or unclear?

 

[porchrat]

I'm not sure what you people are arguing about, given that the article was pretty ****ing clear about this issue.

Is there anything at all in this description that's difficult to understand or unclear?

None that I can see. I don't see how anyone could see Natural Selection in any other way frankly.

 

[h0ll0w]

Uh yes... who here said it was a force?

At most it is a collection of forces... if you want to call the myriad of environmental pressures that all get grouped together under the label we call "natural selection" forces...

I still don't see your point... on this particular topic (I use this word in it's broadest possible sense) never have.

Well at least you almost seem to admit that it is an important distinction to make. So we are getting somewhere. You are also kinda behaving like some sort of cheerleader for copacetic btw, so cute.

Copacetic, good to see you still seem perfectly calm too. Now consider this from your other article :

If you throw a rock up in the air, its path is not governed by pure chance, but by the law of gravity. It cannot fly off randomly in any direction, but will travel in a parabolic arc and land at a predictable point. If you put a hot object next to a cold one, the transfer of heat is not governed by pure chance, but by the laws of thermodynamics. Heat cannot flow randomly in either direction; it will move consistently from the hotter object to the colder one. And if you set a population of randomly mutating organisms in an environment, their future is not drifting at the whim of chance, but is directed by the law of natural selection.

Again, putting gravity and natural selection in the same boat is stupid. It doesn't exactly agree with what you have so neatly enlarged and bolded for us in your perfectly calm state of mind.

Lets take the example of erosion again : Water flows over sand and erodes it away leaving a ditch in the sand. The water did not set itself in motion, gravity was needed amongst other possible forces. Nothing new was introduced or created, no new information. There is now a ditch where there wasn't one, but ultimately just an external feature was altered. Sand was removed by water to somewhere else in a process called erosion.

No creative powers, it can only change existing matter.

 

[Bobbin]

Your example demonstrates quite nicely how traits, due to fitness differences, become prevalent over time. Natural selection is not a filter, it is just a description of how traits persist due their fitness differences. Natural selection also does not explain or describe why a certain trait has a certain fitness potential.

Don't have much time to read up at the moment. Seems I was way off what you meant though. Will look into this whole fitness thing later.

Might I just add though that physical laws/rules/properties are what govern the constraints which organisms can evolve within. This means that life can't just evolve willy nilly as it pleases even though it probably tries to all the time (evidence of this probably is that very few humans for instance are 100% perfect, there is such variation and so many inconsistencies and things that can be improved - so many birth defects, so many genetic problems inheritied by families, so many of us with physical deficiencies and medical conditions etc...). All the elements, gravity, physical properties of biological matter, prevalence of life sustaining material, situational influences such as other threats and dangers etc... there are many many factors at play. So many factors one can't wrap their head around all of it, this I think is impossible. Natural selection however is at play even in our every day lives right in front of our noses. Right down to what determines what type of woman sees you as an acceptable partner and vice versa and even why that occurs.

Life may change randomly all the time and probably does countless times but all these factors and many more determine whether that change will remain or not. Hence all that is really happening is all negative properties of life on the basis of those laws/rules/constraints of the environment are filtered out over time and all the ones that remain for any benefit are kept and reinforced - but there will always be a slightly new random element introduced and/or taken away.

This part is easy to explain simply because when reduced to and presented even at the most basic concept and example of 2 potentials as opposed to billions we can see why 1 trait is favored over another, let alone the billions and billions of potentials occurring all the time.

Hence evolution is probably completely random and by chance, but the end result is concrete because there is no other way it can possibly go.

So maybe I can backtrack here and say that evolution and Natural Selection are possibly two factors working in tandem with one another, probably to some extent against one another I don't know how you choose to look at it. Evolution introduces randomness, natural selection dictates which randomness prevails. So perhaps there is a better answer to one of your previous questions if I am right.

I hope that has some relevance.

Cheers till later. (If I abide by my philosophy I know that cause and effect will dictate that if I don't carry on studying now I stand a better chance at failing my exam tomorrow - I won't leave it to chance)

 

[porchrat]

Well at least you almost seem to admit that it is an important distinction to make.

No there is no distinction. I still don't see any other way to describe natural selection. I just see a whole lot of phronisms.

So we are getting somewhere. You are also kinda behaving like some sort of cheerleader for copacetic btw, so cute.

He asked a question and I responded. It is called a discussion.

 

[copacetic]

You are also kinda behaving like some sort of cheerleader for copacetic btw, so cute.

Grow up.

 

[Techne]

There are a few ways how people understand and describe natural selection.

Darwin described it is a force. Richard Dawkins describes it as a force

Q: The idea that evolution could be "random" seems to frighten people. Is it random?

A: This is a spectacular misunderstanding. If it was random, then of course it couldn't possibly have given rise to the fantastically complicated and elegant forms that we see. Natural selection is the important force that drives evolution. Natural selection is about as non-random a force as you could possibly imagine.

The Greatest Show on Earth pp 332-333.

When the neutral theory of molecular evolution was first proposed by, among others, the great Japanese geneticist Motoo Kimura, it was controversial. Some version of it is now widely accepted and, without going into the detailed evidence here, I am going to accept it in this book. Since I have a reputation as an arch-“adaptationist” (allegedly obsessed with natural selection as the major or even the only driving force of evolution) you can have some confidence that if even I support the neutral theory it is unlikely that many other biologists will oppose it!

So powerful is the illusion of design, it took humanity until the mid-19th century to realize that it is an illusion. In 1859, Charles Darwin announced one of the greatest ideas ever to occur to a human mind: cumulative evolution by natural selection. Living complexity is indeed orders of magnitude too improbable to have come about by chance. But only if we assume that all the luck has to come in one fell swoop. When cascades of small chance steps accumulate, you can reach prodigious heights of adaptive complexity. That cumulative build-up is evolution. Its guiding force is natural selection.

Others do not (see second post of this thread). Still, others see it at most as a collection of forces. So there are clearly different ways in which people understand the concept and it can be a source of confusion when discussing biological change.

 

[Techne]

Might I just add though that physical laws/rules/properties are what govern the constraints which organisms can evolve within.

It is important to understand that physical laws are not actually existing entities that governs this or that piece of matter. Again, it is similar to natural selection, they are merele descriptive and not prescriptive. The way things act and change are constrained by what kind of thing they are. An electron is constrained to certain kinds of behaviour because of what is, not because some laws governs it to do this or that. Similarly, the way living things act and change is constrained or limited by what kind of thing it is. I think we are in agreement here though.

This means that life can't just evolve willy nilly as it pleases even though it probably tries to all the time (evidence of this probably is that very few humans for instance are 100% perfect, there is such variation and so many inconsistencies and things that can be improved - so many birth defects, so many genetic problems inheritied by families, so many of us with physical deficiencies and medical conditions etc...).

The problem with this is the assertion that there is some sort of template for something to be 100% perfect or even instances of some humans that are 100%. The way this can be interpreted then is that things are trying to evolve towards some template. This is of course nonsensical.

All the elements, gravity, physical properties of biological matter, prevalence of life sustaining material, situational influences such as other threats and dangers etc... there are many many factors at play. So many factors one can't wrap their head around all of it, this I think is impossible.

Yes indeed, to describe all the per se causes (including in fieri causes and in esse causes) as well as per accidens causes can be hard.

Natural selection however is at play even in our every day lives right in front of our noses. Right down to what determines what type of woman sees you as an acceptable partner and vice versa and even why that occurs.

The way you describe NS here makes it sound as if it is a force like gravity, a force that is pervasive wherever there is biological change. Well, it certainly can be interpreted that way and it is nonsensical IMO.

Life may change randomly all the time and probably does countless times but all these factors and many more determine whether that change will remain or not.

I don’t think the claim that it is truly random or truly disordered or chaotic in any ontologically significant sense can be defended simply because "there is no agreed definition of randomness among mathematicians or other scientists". With regards to mutations, the effects of the mutations are "random" with regards to the fitness or the phenotype of the organism and not necessarily completely chaotic and disordered.

Hence all that is really happening is all negative properties of life on the basis of those laws/rules/constraints of the environment are filtered out over time and all the ones that remain for any benefit are kept and reinforced - but there will always be a slightly new random element introduced and/or taken away.

This part is easy to explain simply because when reduced to and presented even at the most basic concept and example of 2 potentials as opposed to billions we can see why 1 trait is favored over another, let alone the billions and billions of potentials occurring all the time.

Hence evolution is probably completely random and by chance, but the end result is concrete because there is no other way it can possibly go.

So maybe I can backtrack here and say that evolution and Natural Selection are possibly two factors working in tandem with one another, probably to some extent against one another I don't know how you choose to look at it. Evolution introduces randomness, natural selection dictates which randomness prevails. So perhaps there is a better answer to one of your previous questions if I am right.

I hope that has some relevance.

Well, to be honest, your assertion that 'Evolution introduces randomness, natural selection dictates which randomness prevails." does not make sense. Evolution is just biological change and natural selection is just a descriptive term and not some active force or cause that acts an an agent that filters randomness.

Cheers till later. (If I abide by my philosophy I know that cause and effect will dictate that if I don't carry on studying now I stand a better chance at failing my exam tomorrow - I won't leave it to chance)

Haha, study well, good luck!

 

[alloytoo]

None that I can see. I don't see how anyone could see Natural Selection in any other way frankly.

Well if we're brutally honest they really want to describe Natural Selection as some sort of guiding intelligence. We have somehow (Mr.Deity could know why) cured them of this notion, so now they're resorting to semantic games to confuse people about the nature of natural selection.

Hence the mantra "Natural selection does nothing."

Of course it does nothing, it is, like erosion, a result of a myriad of ever changing conditions.

The semantic games are of course meaningless and tiresome.

 

[scotty777]

Hmmph. People believe what they want to believe. The only reason why we have creationism in the first place is because people like the idea that we are actually special, and that we didn't actually alive in the universe by nothing but chance.

People seem to just love choosing what story they want to believe in because it suits them. If the whole bible was taking literally, then people would actually be a brother to all, be friendly etc... but all that stuff is tough to do, however, believing that God created everything is simple and easy to understand... Thus they accept that. The reasons why we have issues with the 'holy book' and all the hockus pockus rubbish in it is because there's a clear incoherence between what people believe is fact and what should be ignored.


Evolution is without question, fact. I've never once doubted it because, well, it and the speed of light are both the most well documented scientific theories. There's no way a ration person with any higher thought process would find a hole in the science. However, the problem doesn't stem from the science, it stems from people not willing to actually understand things, because they know it's tough, and they know it'll weaken their faith.

It's quite paramount to understand the beings that you are dealing with when you trying to convince creationists that it doesn't add up. Those people don't want to accept it, and they probably never will. It's the same problem that you deal with when you have someone that is incompetent. Because they are incompetent, they don't know that they are incompetent, which leads them to create a false sense of security in thinking they are competent, which further displays their incompetence. If you tried tell them otherwise, their own arrogance blocks out your opinion and they will either only accept your opinion if it agrees with theirs, otherwise it's not correct (to them).

you are better off just telling fools be fools, because unless they figure out that they being foolish, they just won't accept anything you say.

<edit>
Oh, also, I'll accept if you don't agree with me. I'll do my best to objectively look at your opinion and reevaluate mine. As life has shown me, i actually know very little, so perhaps you could help me out a little .

 

[h0ll0w]

Well if we're brutally honest they really want to describe Natural Selection as some sort of guiding intelligence. We have somehow (Mr.Deity could know why) cured them of this notion, so now they're resorting to semantic games to confuse people about the nature of natural selection.

Hence the mantra "Natural selection does nothing."

Of course it does nothing, it is, like erosion, a result of a myriad of ever changing conditions.

The semantic games are of course meaningless and tiresome.

Ah thanks alloytoo, for saying the exact same thing as porchrat.

I'm sure you know this, and probably just got a little carried away, but you sort of have to read at least some of the previous pages of the thread before you can make an informed comment.

If it seems a little daunting you have enough time, copacetic also took the best part of two weeks to put together his reply.

 

[h0ll0w]

Evolution is without question, fact. I've never once doubted it because, well, it and the speed of light are both the most well documented scientific theories. There's no way a ration person with any higher thought process would find a hole in the science.

You don't read or come out of the house much do you ? You just don't seem that well informed is all :\

 

[alloytoo]

Ah thanks alloytoo, for saying the exact same thing as porchrat.

I'm sure you know this, and probably just got a little carried away, but you sort of have to read at least some of the previous pages of the thread before you can make an informed comment.

If it seems a little daunting you have enough time, copacetic also took the best part of two weeks to put together his reply.

How does waffling about the semantics of natural selection, or erosion for that matter challenge the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the observed fact of evolution.

 

[Techne]

Understanding the concept of natural selection is relevant to a person's understanding of evolution and the ToE. As pointed out, there are a few ways how people understand and describe natural selection. It is important to understand where each person comes from and how they understand it so that we do not talk passed each other.

 

[Ekstasis]

My understanding of natural selection is more a case of adapting to external factors such as environmental influences, food sources etc. But NS stays within the species as far as the fosil record, yes? It does not move upwards, say from bacteria to humans. At the very best in bacteria it would evolve those bacteria into better adapted bacteria or flies into better adapted flies.

Is there anything beyond this in the fossil record? There's examples of differences for which reasons for assumed changes are speculated, but no example exists of an animal that lacks wings, and evolves wings step by step because these wings are clearly an advantage for it in escaping predators.
Have they ever uncovered a wingless fly? Yet there's millions of todays type flies uncovered that was preserved in rock.

The many examples we have, such as flies trapped in rock or other animals animals preserved in other ways, finds that, aside from a few mutations , there is virtually no difference between the fossils and modern examples.

 

[Chicken Boo]

Is there anything beyond this in the fossil record? There's examples of differences for which reasons for assumed changes are speculated, but no example exists of an animal that lacks wings, and evolves wings step by step because these wings are clearly an advantage for it in escaping predators.
Have they ever uncovered a wingless fly? Yet there's millions of todays type flies uncovered that was preserved in rock.

Yes. Well, not a fly, but some years ago the discovery was made that certain stick insect species have evolved and devolved wings with time. In other words, they had wings, the advantage to having them either disappeared or changed, and then the advantage came back - spanning some millions of years.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/823789/posts

Regarding wings evolving step-by-step - ever seen or heard of flying squirrels? They could be on their way to being the squirrel equivalent of bats, and we're seeing them in the process. There are countless examples like this, but we tend to see all extant animals as being the completed product, as per The Book, when really none are.

 

[alloytoo]

My understanding of natural selection is more a case of adapting to external factors such as environmental influences, food sources etc. But NS stays within the species as far as the fosil record, yes? It does not move upwards, say from bacteria to humans. At the very best in bacteria it would evolve those bacteria into better adapted bacteria or flies into better adapted flies.

Please explain the mechanisms of "Adaptation".

Is there anything beyond this in the fossil record? There's examples of differences for which reasons for assumed changes are speculated, but no example exists of an animal that lacks wings, and evolves wings step by step because these wings are clearly an advantage for it in escaping predators.

Wings do not evolve "because" they are "clearly" an advantage.

Wings evolve step by step because each intermediate step was either neutral or beneficial to each consecutive generation.

 

[porchrat]

My understanding of natural selection is more a case of adapting to external factors such as environmental influences, food sources etc. But NS stays within the species as far as the fosil record, yes? It does not move upwards, say from bacteria to humans. At the very best in bacteria it would evolve those bacteria into better adapted bacteria or flies into better adapted flies.

Is there anything beyond this in the fossil record? There's examples of differences for which reasons for assumed changes are speculated, but no example exists of an animal that lacks wings, and evolves wings step by step because these wings are clearly an advantage for it in escaping predators.
Have they ever uncovered a wingless fly? Yet there's millions of todays type flies uncovered that was preserved in rock.

The many examples we have, such as flies trapped in rock or other animals animals preserved in other ways, finds that, aside from a few mutations , there is virtually no difference between the fossils and modern examples.

What do you mean NS stays within the species according to the fossil record?

What do you expect to see a fossil that has the top half human and the bottom half bacterium?

EDIT: Oh wait you mean do we have fossilised earlier versions of the things that we see today. Like bird-like things that had crappier sort of proto-wings than our current birds. Yea there are plenty of those sorts of creatures around for all sorts of animals: horses, birds etc. just Google them.

 

[Techne]

Ekstasis, I think it is important to distinguish between adaptation and evolution. Individuals adapt while populations evolve.

The causes of adaptation are different from those of evolution although some do of course overlap e.g. genetic and epigenetic changes.

The causes of evolution are mutations, non-random mating, migration, genetic drift, and differential survival and reproductive success. When we talk about evolution it refers to change in the characteristics (or allele frequencies) of populations, not individuals.

An example of an adaptation is when you fly from sunny South Africa to the Antarctic. Your body is able to adapt to the cold climate and many different ways e.g. maybe more thyroxin secretion or less water retention perhaps.
In order to understand the causes and mechanisms of these adaptations one needs to study physiology, anatomy, biochemistry etc.

If, however, the earth as a whole become extremely cold, individual humans are able to adapt to this new environment. But different individuals will have different fitness potentials (some may not adapt as well for example) and it is because of these differences that the population dynamics from one generation to another will change. The population will evolve, the dynamics of the population will change over time due to the different fitness potentials of individuals.