Is evolution hanging on ?

[Oopsie]

All truths require a measure of proof for their validity, do they not? If there is no proof requirement, then clearly anything goes. It is this aspect of having a truth that makes a demonstration a necessity. If you have a truth without its proof, well, that's just a faith-based belief, isn't it?

Science does not require "proof" as Mathematics does. Science is all about Theories and the repeatability of the experiments that leads to "strength of evidence".

Theories have been wrong and can change over time as new evidence comes to light. For instance, the general relativity theory does not explain QM and is not compatible.
Scientists have been struggling for many years to reconcile the two but so far we have to separate both as QM has it's own laws. It borders on Supernatural that is synonymous to Paranormal.

Quantum Biology is a new field that is no different to QM and will one day explain it to our children's offspring.

 

[Xarog]

We're not (yet) talking about truth: we're talking about achievement, and the definition thereof.

Where, in the definition of "achievement", is "proof" a requirement? It does not appear to be part of the dictionary definition that you quoted.

Note that if you're going to require proof for anything to be or to have been done/achieved, and you simultaneously reject all forms of proof, then you're well on your way to nihilism (in which case any discussion on the matter is meaningless )

One doesn't need to know that one is running 15km/h in order to run 15km/h. One does need to know what the truth is in order to achieve it in any meaningful sense. Knowing something implies necessarily that one can explain to oneself why one knows that particular thing. If you can't do that, then you did not in fact achieve the thing which you are saying could have been achieved despite the individual being ignorant of that achievement. If you can't say why you know that you were running 15km/h, then how do you know that you know it?

So no, I don't reject all forms of proof. I just reject forms of proof that would lay claim to some kind of absoluteness when those forms are not immune to doubt. This does not in any way make me a nihilist. Meaning is in any case a subjective phenomenon, as is all known forms of human truths.

 

[Xarog]

Science does not require "proof" as Mathematics does. Science is all about Theories and the repeatability of the experiments that leads to "strength of evidence".

Theories have been wrong and can change over time as new evidence comes to light. For instance, the general relativity theory does not explain QM and is not compatible.
Scientists have been struggling for many years to reconcile the two but so far we have to separate both as QM has it's own laws. It borders on Supernatural that is synonymous to Paranormal.

Quantum Biology is a new field that is no different to QM and will one day explain it to our children's offspring.

Science may not, but a truth claim that speaks about the absolute truth absolutely does.

 

[Xarog]

I don't think that natural selection requires mutations be random, it's just that there is no evidence that they are not random
If you really want to discuss this, then let's rather move to a more appropriate thread...

Natural selection does indeed require random mutation in that if the mutation is non-random then the selection is not merely happening naturally.


http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/evolutionnotbychance/

A SYNOPSIS

When prominent biologists claim that “evolution is a fact,” they are stating a half-truth that means far less than what they would like the public to believe. The theory of evolution—and it is just that, a theory—states that the development of life is a purely natural process, driven by known mechanisms. But this is simply not true. There is no evidence that life developed, or even could have developed, by a purely natural process.

According to neo-Darwinian theory, the process that accounts for the evolution of all life is that of random mutations shaped by natural selection. This theory says that evolution is built up by a long series of many steps. In each step many random changes occur in the hereditary storage of organisms. If one of these random changes should by chance happen to make the organism better adapted to its environment, then natural selection will spread that change through the population. Each of these changes is said to be small, but the accumulation of a long series of them is said to account for large changes in populations adapting them to their environment. This process is assumed to work, and on the basis of that assumption, evolution is said to account for the development of all life.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/

Evolution myths: Evolution is random

By Michael Le Page

No and yes. Natural selection is a rigorous testing process that filters out what works from what doesn’t, driving organisms to evolve in particular directions. However, chance events play a big role too.

“The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747,” astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe told a court in Arkansas in 1981, according a report in New Scientist (21 January 1982, p 140). His colleague Fred Hoyle made the tornado version of this claim famous – proving that even very clever people can utterly misunderstand evolution.

A somewhat better analogy would be starting with a million junkyards, painstakingly testing the wreckage left in each one after the tornado to find the most flight worthy, making a million exact copies of that junkyard, unleashing another million tornadoes, running another series of exhaustive tests, and so on, until you produce some kind of machine – no matter how crude and un-Boeing-747-like – capable of flying at least a few yards.
Promoting survival

Evolution by natural selection is a two-step process, and only the first step is random: mutations are chance events, but their survival is often anything but. Natural selection favours mutations that provide some advantage (see Evolution promotes the survival of species), and the physical world imposes very strict limits on what works and what doesn’t. The result is that organisms evolve in particular directions.

Mutations are not chance events. There is a natural mechanism which provokes mutation; we are only beginning to figure out what that mechanism is, but its presence is undeniable.

 

[C4Cat]

Natural selection does indeed require random mutation in that if the mutation is non-random then the selection is not merely happening naturally.


http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/evolutionnotbychance/

No, you're confusing natural selection with mutation - the bit you didn't bold is:
According to neo-Darwinian theory, the process that accounts for the evolution of all life is that of random mutations shaped by natural selection.

Natural selection is simply this:
Organisms which are adapted to their environment survive while those that aren't do not.

There is some evidence that mutations are random (eg http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_07) but it's irrelevant to natural selection how the mutations occur, only that some mutations will help the species survive and others will doom it.

 

[Xarog]

No, you're confusing natural selection with mutation - the bit you didn't bold is:
According to neo-Darwinian theory, the process that accounts for the evolution of all life is that of random mutations shaped by natural selection.

Yes, but natural selection and random mutation is not what drives evolution. The theory as Darwin described it is thus refuted. You don't simply get to pick and choose the parts of the model you like and then ignore it when a fatal flaw is pointed out in other parts of the model.

Natural selection is simply this:
Organisms which are adapted to their environment survive while those that aren't do not.


There is some evidence that mutations are random (eg http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_07) but it's irrelevant to natural selection how the mutations occur, only that some mutations will help the species survive and others will doom it.

I phrased myself badly when I initially said "natural selection", but I was actually referring to the whole thing as per the Dawkins quote.

Evidence of non-random mutation refutes Darwinian evolution which postulates random mutation.

 

[C4Cat]

Yes, but natural selection and random mutation is not what drives evolution. The theory as Darwin described it is thus refuted. You don't simply get to pick and choose the parts of the model you like and then ignore it when a fatal flaw is pointed out in other parts of the model.

I phrased myself badly when I initially said "natural selection", but I was actually referring to the whole thing as per the Dawkins quote.

Evidence of non-random mutation refutes Darwinian evolution which postulates random mutation.

Yes, I do agree, that's why I initially said: "It's possible that natural selection is not the only mechanism driving evolution but there is enough evidence that natural selection is a primary driver of evolution. It's not a complete explanation though..."

Having said that, the theory called Darwinian evolution has itself evolved over the years (which is why they refer to neo-darwinian theory)
The problem with the Dawkins quote above is not what he said about evolution (which is correct, as far as I know) it's that he differentiates between scientists and idiots, as if scientists can't be idiots and idiots can't be scientists.

I'm also not sure if Darwinian evolution requires that mutations be random or if Darwin himself ever specified that this the case

 

[Splinter]

All truths require a measure of proof for their validity, do they not? If there is no proof requirement, then clearly anything goes. It is this aspect of having a truth that makes a demonstration a necessity. If you have a truth without its proof, well, that's just a faith-based belief, isn't it?

Where is your proof of this statement?

 

[Xarog]

Yes, I do agree, that's why I initially said: "It's possible that natural selection is not the only mechanism driving evolution but there is enough evidence that natural selection is a primary driver of evolution. It's not a complete explanation though..."

Right, but here's the thing, if the theory is incomplete and the complete theory invalidates Darwin's description, then Darwin's theory is refuted, not so?

Hence: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Nonrandom_directed_mutations_confirmed.php

The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection of random mutations should be consigned to history where it belongs;

I don't mean to knock the guy; Darwin was a visionary for his time. It's just that science has moved on and Dawkins ought to recognise that fact. I mean, I actually think a lot of the intelligent design nutjobs might actually calm down once they realise that their desire for a director on the evolutionary stage can be satisfied by the genome of the species itself.

Having said that, the theory called Darwinian evolution has itself evolved over the years (which is why they refer to neo-darwinian theory) The problem with the Dawkins quote above is not what he said about evolution (which is correct, as far as I know) it's that he differentiates between scientists and idiots, as if scientists can't be idiots and idiots can't be scientists.

Actually, as far as Dawkins' inflammatory comments go, this one doesn't bother me that much since much of the anti-evolutionary rhetoric comes from anti-scientific perspectives.

 

[C4Cat]

Right, but here's the thing, if the theory is incomplete and the complete theory invalidates Darwin's description, then Darwin's theory is refuted, not so?

Hence: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Nonrandom_directed_mutations_confirmed.php


I don't mean to knock the guy; Darwin was a visionary for his time. It's just that science has moved on and Dawkins ought to recognise that fact. I mean, I actually think a lot of the intelligent design nutjobs might actually calm down once they realise that their desire for a director on the evolutionary stage can be satisfied by the genome of the species itself.


Actually, as far as Dawkins' inflammatory comments go, this one doesn't bother me that much since much of the anti-evolutionary rhetoric comes from anti-scientific perspectives.

I don't think Darwin ever included random mutation as part of his theory of evolution by natural selection. In fact this argues otherwise:

Darwin thought of natural selection by analogy to how farmers select crops or livestock for breeding, which he called "artificial selection"; in his early manuscripts he referred to a Nature, which would do the selection. At the time, other mechanisms of evolution such as evolution by genetic drift were not yet explicitly formulated, and Darwin believed that selection was likely only part of the story: "I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification."[47] In a letter to Charles Lyell in September 1860, Darwin regretted the use of the term "Natural Selection," preferring the term "Natural Preservation."[48]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

Also, genetics was not really understood yet when Darwin formulated his theory. Although Gregor Mendel, the "father of modern genetics", was working at around the same time as Darwin, his ideas only really took hold in the 20th century.

So no, I must still disagree, Darwin's theory of evolution does not require random mutation (although we know many mutations are random, it doesn't mean all are) so it doesn't make a difference as to the correctness of natural selection as a (the?) primary driver of evolution.

 

[Bobbin]

There is some evidence that mutations are random (eg http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_07)

/shifts uncomfortably

Mutations are neither random nor intelligently directed! I prefer that they are directed by fixed natural laws. Even if we accept quantum randomness as a justification for random in the world (Which I don't) it is still probabilistic and not truly random. So suck it to everyone on the wrong side of the fence and come join my new side instead

Meh... don't mind me lol #notanexpert

 

[Xarog]

I don't think Darwin ever included random mutation as part of his theory of evolution by natural selection. In fact this argues otherwise:

Natural selection was only one aspect of Darwin's theory of evolution. You can't talk about the whole theory in terms of natural selection to the exclusion of everything else simply because you find it convenient to do so.

From your own link:

Darwin thought of natural selection by analogy to how farmers select crops or livestock for breeding, which he called "artificial selection"; in his early manuscripts he referred to a Nature, which would do the selection. At the time, other mechanisms of evolution such as evolution by genetic drift were not yet explicitly formulated, and Darwin believed that selection was likely only part of the story: "I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification."[47] In a letter to Charles Lyell in September 1860, Darwin regretted the use of the term "Natural Selection," preferring the term "Natural Preservation."[48]

For Darwin and his contemporaries, natural selection was in essence synonymous with evolution by natural selection. After the publication of On the Origin of Species, educated people generally accepted that evolution had occurred in some form. However, natural selection remained controversial as a mechanism, partly because it was perceived to be too weak to explain the range of observed characteristics of living organisms, and partly because even supporters of evolution balked at its "unguided" and non-progressive nature,[49] a response that has been characterised as the single most significant impediment to the idea's acceptance.[50]

Guided mutations are a different mechanism. In other words, the primary driver of evolution is not natural selection, it is guided mutations mediated by stress responses and an interplay of information transfer between genetic and epigenetic structures.

Also, genetics was not really understood yet when Darwin formulated his theory. Although Gregor Mendel, the "father of modern genetics", was working at around the same time as Darwin, his ideas only really took hold in the 20th century.

So Newton wasn't wrong about his theory of gravity because Einstein wasn't around to tell him about his mistakes yet?

So no, I must still disagree, Darwin's theory of evolution does not require random mutation (although we know many mutations are random, it doesn't mean all are) so it doesn't make a difference as to the correctness natural selection as a (the?) primary driver of evolution.

If his theory of evolution does not take into account guided genetic mutations, then his theory of evolution does not match up with reality. So if you want to claim that an unrealistic theory has not been refuted, be my guest, but don't expect me or anyone else to find such an argument convincing any time soon.

The fact of the matter is that non-random mutations occur as a result of maximising beneficial attributes in the species, which in turn reduces the stress levels of the next generation (if your life isn't stressful, chances are you're doing well) in such a way that low stress mutations are preserved and high stress mutations degrade themselves in an attempt to find a novel solution (through a high mutation rate) in a genetic recipe that is obviously struggling to deal with the requirements of the environment. In this model an entire species can hone in on the properties most beneficial to that species; and contrary to the model of natural selection which can only function bindly, what you have is actually a system that has an appetite for success and knows how to go about finding it.

Natural selection is a theory of evolution where evolution is dumb, but in reality evolution is essentially intelligent.

 

[C4Cat]

Natural selection was only one aspect of Darwin's theory of evolution. You can't talk about the whole theory in terms of natural selection to the exclusion of everything else simply because you find it convenient to do so.

From your own link:


Guided mutations are a different mechanism. In other words, the primary driver of evolution is not natural selection, it is guided mutations mediated by stress responses and an interplay of information transfer between genetic and epigenetic structures.


So Newton wasn't wrong about his theory of gravity because Einstein wasn't around to tell him about his mistakes yet?




If his theory of evolution does not take into account guided genetic mutations, then his theory of evolution does not match up with reality. So if you want to claim that an unrealistic theory has not been refuted, be my guest, but don't expect me or anyone else to find such an argument convincing any time soon.

The fact of the matter is that non-random mutations occur as a result of maximising beneficial attributes in the species, which in turn reduces the stress levels of the next generation (if your life isn't stressful, chances are you're doing well) in such a way that low stress mutations are preserved and high stress mutations degrade themselves in an attempt to find a novel solution (through a high mutation rate) in a genetic recipe that is obviously struggling to deal with the requirements of the environment. In this model an entire species can hone in on the properties most beneficial to that species; and contrary to the model of natural selection which can only function bindly, what you have is actually a system that has an appetite for success and knows how to go about finding it.

Natural selection is a theory of evolution where evolution is dumb, but in reality evolution is essentially intelligent.

No, you are wrong Xarog. (0/10)
Natural selection was NOT only one aspect of Darwin's theory of evolution - Natural selection was Darwin's theory of evolution, complete...

You are still getting mixed up between random genetic mutation and natural selection.

It's irrelevant how the mutations occur, natural selection still determines who survives and who doesn't.

Darwin wouldn't have known about genetic mutation as we do today, it simply wasn't a part of his theory. You may be correct that the primary driver of evolution is not natural selection, but even if you are correct that evolution is guided mutations mediated by stress responses and an interplay of information transfer between genetic and epigenetic structures - that still doesn't exclude natural selection as a driving mechanism.

You say that Natural selection is a theory of evolution where evolution is dumb, but that's not the case - it may be how neo-darwinists see things as it fits into a materialist paradigm but it's not inherent in Darwins theory.

Evolution may indeed be essentially intelligent, in that mutuations are not random at all - but natural selection still determines, in the end, who survives and who doesn't.

The following is a quote from Darwin which encapsulates the essence of natural selection:

"Variation is a feature of natural populations and every population produces more progeny than its environment can manage. The consequences of this overproduction is that those individuals with the best genetic fitness for the environment will produce offspring that can more successfully compete in that environment. Thus the subsequent generation will have a higher representation of these offspring and the population will have evolved."

Randomness in genetic mutation doesn't enter into it, all that's required is variation in progeny, irrespective of how it comes about, and those individuals with the best genetic fitness for the environment will produce offspring that can more successfully compete in that environment.

If you are correct and mutations are intelligently and creatively managed then perhaps nature is experimental and tries different mutations - nature may even 'remember' what works and what doesn't and so reuse mutations that have proven to work in the past (which makes sense to me) but in the end, it is still natural selection that determines what variations will be passed on to the next generation and what traits will die out.

 

[Splinter]

Right, but here's the thing, if the theory is incomplete and the complete theory invalidates Darwin's description, then Darwin's theory is refuted, not so?.

Nope, evolution is not refuted just because Darwin, lacking todays science, got the mechanism incorrect. The outcome is correct.

Evolution still takes place, simple as that.

I don't mean to knock the guy; Darwin was a visionary for his time. It's just that science has moved on and Dawkins ought to recognise that fact.

I so do get the feeling you want to mock/debunk Darwin. But that's just me.

I mean, I actually think a lot of the intelligent design nutjobs might actually calm down once they realise that their desire for a director on the evolutionary stage can be satisfied by the genome of the species itself..

Just because there is a mechanism that directs evolution due to environmental stresses does not, in anyway, endorse an intelligent creator of such a mechanism.

And then secondly, even if it did, it in no way supports ludicrous religious deities as said intelligent creator.

 

[Xarog]

No, you are wrong Xarog. (0/10)
Natural selection was NOT only one aspect of Darwin's theory of evolution - Natural selection was Darwin's theory of evolution, complete...

If natural selection is the only component of his theory, then his theory is refuted by virtue of it not being realistic.

You are still getting mixed up between random genetic mutation and natural selection.

It's irrelevant how the mutations occur, natural selection still determines who survives and who doesn't.

Who survives and who does not is not the primary driver of evolution. Do you not understand that part?

Darwin wouldn't have known about genetic mutation as we do today, it simply wasn't a part of his theory. You may be correct that the primary driver of evolution is not natural selection, but even if you are correct that evolution is guided mutations mediated by stress responses and an interplay of information transfer between genetic and epigenetic structures - that still doesn't exclude natural selection as a driving mechanism.

Riiiight. That's like saying that phases of the moon creates poverty because it's demonstrable that some people become poor due to losing their minds and howling at every full moon.

You say that Natural selection is a theory of evolution where evolution is dumb, but that's not the case - it may be how neo-darwinists see things as it fits into a materialist paradigm but it's not inherent in Darwins theory.

Au contraire.

http://www.alfredwallace.org/intelligent-evolution.php

Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution Contrasted with Darwinian Evolution

Both forms of evolution describe change through time, but only Wallace’s intelligent evolution limits the power of natural selection to effect biological change. It suggests that in those areas of the biological world beyond the scope of natural selection’s operations, some purposive intelligence must be called upon to explain their existence. In contrast, Darwinian evolution claims that all biological life can be explained through a directionless process of “survival of the fittest” and random mutation.

Wallace, basing his theory on Darwin’s own principle of utility (the cornerstone of natural selection that says attributes in an organism will only develop when they accord the organism a survival advantage), insisted that where no clear survival advantage can be found some teleological (purposive) and intelligent agency must be the cause.

Both Wallace and Darwin were committed to science, but their conceptions of science were dramatically different: for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world; for Darwin science must invoke only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonteleological ways. Wallace’s view of science was unencumbered by philosophical assumptions whereas Darwin’s science was pigeonholed by the philosophical presumption known as methodological naturalism (or methodological materialism).

Evolution may indeed be essentially intelligent, in that mutuations are not random at all - but natural selection still determines, in the end, who survives and who doesn't.

That's like saying cause and effect determines cause and effect.

 

[C4Cat]

If natural selection is the only component of his theory, then his theory is refuted by virtue of it not being realistic.


Who survives and who does not is not the primary driver of evolution. Do you not understand that part?




Riiiight. That's like saying that phases of the moon creates poverty because it's demonstrable that some people become poor due to losing their minds and howling at every full moon.



Au contraire.

http://www.alfredwallace.org/intelligent-evolution.php




That's like saying cause and effect determines cause and effect.

We'll have to agree to disagree because as far as I can tell, who survives and who does not IS the primary driver of evolution. If we can't agree on that there is point continuing to argue.
I've no idea what you're trying to say with your phases of the moon creates poverty nonsense, I'm sure the connection is clear to you but I don't see it.

Here is a challenge: go to Darwin's "On the origin of species" and point out where he discusses random mutations, directionless process, etc and then get back to me.

 

[Xarog]

We'll have to agree to disagree because as far as I can tell, who survives and who does not IS the primary driver of evolution. If we can't agree on that there is point continuing to argue.

Because it isn't. The primary driver of evolution is directed mutation as enacted by the genome.

Thus it is inappropriate to talk of natural selection, and more appropriate to speak of natural self-selection.

I've no idea what you're trying to say with your phases of the moon creates poverty nonsense, I'm sure the connection is clear to you but I don't see it.

Correlation is not causation.

 

[C4Cat]

Because it isn't. The primary driver of evolution is directed mutation as enacted by the genome.

Thus it is inappropriate to talk of natural selection, and more appropriate to speak of natural self-selection.


Correlation is not causation.

I still don't understand, what correlation are you referring to?

As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree on whether natural selection is the primary driver of evolution, it seems obvious to me that it is at least one of the primary drivers (as I said before), so you just stating it isn't, is not very convincing.
Directed mutation as enacted by the genome (if such a thing even exists) means jack **** in evolutionary terms if the species doesn't survive in it's ever changing environment.

 

[Xarog]

I still don't understand, what correlation are you referring to?

I'm saying you are taking something that happens to be circumstancially true with respect to the way evolution works and placing it as the keystone of the theory when such a decision is not justified given the mountains of evidence regarding non-random mutation.

As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree on whether natural selection is the primary driver of evolution, it seems obvious to me that it is at least one of the primary drivers (as I said before), so you just stating it isn't, is not very convincing.

The natural selection that you are talking about only occurs in situations where disasters affect (i.e. kill off) the large majority of the population. It happens, but it isn't the primary driver of mutation, because the primary driver of mutation still works even in a situation where 100% of the population gets to pass their genes onto the next generation.

Directed mutation as enacted by the genome (if such a thing even exists) means jack **** in evolutionary terms if the species doesn't survive in it's ever changing environment.

Right, but survival of the fittest is not the main driver of evolution, it is simply an observation about survival.

 

[Xarog]

You might like to read this, C4Cat:
https://epicgenetic.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/prdm9-my-favourite-gene/