What prevents macro-evolution?

[Crispy Duck]

Hi all,

Here's something that occurred to me that other day, which I haven't seen raised on talkorigins or similar sites. According to the Intelligent Design crowd, what is it that prevents macro-evolution?

I remember reading a very important statement about evolution - it was probably in a Dawkins book, though I don't remember which one. The statement was that, given *any* system in which you have (i) reproduction, (ii) inheritance, and (iii) random mutation, there *has* to be "evolution" - it can't be avoided. The average characteristics of the replicators, whatever they may be, will inevitably drift away from their starting points, particularly if anything in the environment changes.

This statement, that any system of replicators will inevitably evolve, seems self-evidently true to me. There is no mechanism whereby a given generation can "remember" the limits of its parent's generation, and cause its own offspring to remain within those limits.

Intelligent Design posits that macro-evolution doesn't (or possibly can't - which is it, by the way?) happen. So, what's stopping it? Has the ID movement been challenged to hypothesise a mechanism that limits genetic drift? Would they just fall back on their abuse of information theory?

I'm tempted to invoke the Second Law of Thermodynamics and suggest that any system of replicators that somehow *didn't* drift would have to violate it, but I don't want to get into such dubious territory... :)

I'd be interested in the thoughts of those more knowledgable than myself...

cbl.

[Bronze Dog]

Since I have a feeling hammy's coming: Can someone please define "macro-evolution"?

[KingMerv00]

Welcome to the forum.

I'm fairly certain that this was discussed on talkorigins at some point but I can't remember where exactly.

Anyway, the closest thing I've heard to an attempted refutation is "mutations are too slow", "the mutations would be too complicated", or "the intermediates would have no survival advantage". You know, stupid stuff.

[KingMerv00]

Since I have a feeling hammy's coming: Can someone please define "macro-evolution"?

Maybe he doesn't know who hammy is. For his sake, I hope it stays that way.

[cbish]

what is it that prevents macro-evolution?

I'd say the same thing that causes it; Natural Selection.

I don't know if macro-evolution can be prevented. I know many organisms have changed very little but that is usually at the Family level of classification. At the species level, organisms that are "unchanged" have actually changed over time.

[PatKelley]

"Macro evolution" would be one "kind" crossing over to being another "kind"- where creationists/ID claims there is no middle ground, or a half-formed wing is useless and so on, so there is no way competetive advantage could favor a half-formed crippled transitional animal.

Except that selection does not operate in this manner, and modification of body parts is not spontaneous generation. A good argument against evolution would be if extra limbs evolved.

Allow me to give a demonstration:
A boneless fish starts out with a skin protrusion (mutation) that confers a competetive advantage (camoflage)
A few lengthened become sensory filaments (sense) became barbs (sense and defense) became calceous spines (defense) became moveable spines (defense) became hard fins (mobility and defense) became bony fins (mobility). This is a rough and unresearched recapitulation of a possible evolution of bony fins.

The problem is that ID/Creationism would demand that at each step, from start to finish, that the only use be movement. That's not how evolution progresses: parts are parts; they are not "destined" for a final form.

[WildCat]

If the question is how one species begets another species, I think that isolation has to be present. That is, one population can have no interbreeding w/ any other population. Since their mutations would likely be mutually exclusive after separation, eventually the genetic differences would cross the species threshold. I'll define that as no fertile offspring.

[RichardR]

Hi all,

Here's something that occurred to me that other day, which I haven't seen raised on talkorigins or similar sites. According to the Intelligent Design crowd, what is it that prevents macro-evolution?

There's a magic invisible barrier. Micro evolution OK. But the magic barrier prevents macro evolution.

I think that's it.

[Crispy Duck]

Thanks for the replies. I know who Hammy is - I would be very interested to hear his views on the question.

I understand the definitions of micro- and macro-evolution, as given by ID. I can also see the paucity of their arguments against evolution, and I'm perfectly happy in my own mind that evolution adequately explains the origin of species.

My point in raising the question was this: it seems to me that in most cases, IDers don't put forward any ideas of their own, and simply say "I can't see how evolution can explain feature X, therefore God did it". They seem to accept, as micro-evolution, that any system of replicators must drift away from its starting point. However, they draw an arbitrary line at "macro-evolution". It therefore falls fairly and squarely on ID to explain what special feature of the specific system of replicators in question, DNA-based life, prevents macro-evolution.

I know this question has been raised - "how much accumulated micro-evolution counts as macro-evolution?" etc - but I found it very useful to have my way of thinking about the systems turned upside down. I suspect that many ordinary people have the implicit impression, as I once did, that there is some special magic ingredient in DNA, or the environment, or somewhere, that somehow causes or allows evolution to happen. Turning that around, and demonstrating that it would be impossible for evolution *not* to happen, is a very important "paradigm shift", if you'll excuse the manamgement-speak. :)

I look forward to hammy's thoughts...

cbl.

[sphenisc]

Thanks for the replies. I know who Hammy is - I would be very interested to hear his views on the question.

I understand the definitions of micro- and macro-evolution, as given by ID. I can also see the paucity of their arguments against evolution, and I'm perfectly happy in my own mind that evolution adequately explains the origin of species.

My point in raising the question was this: it seems to me that in most cases, IDers don't put forward any ideas of their own, and simply say "I can't see how evolution can explain feature X, therefore God did it". They seem to accept, as micro-evolution, that any system of replicators must drift away from its starting point. However, they draw an arbitrary line at "macro-evolution". It therefore falls fairly and squarely on ID to explain what special feature of the specific system of replicators in question, DNA-based life, prevents macro-evolution.

I know this question has been raised - "how much accumulated micro-evolution counts as macro-evolution?" etc - but I found it very useful to have my way of thinking about the systems turned upside down. I suspect that many ordinary people have the implicit impression, as I once did, that there is some special magic ingredient in DNA, or the environment, or somewhere, that somehow causes or allows evolution to happen. Turning that around, and demonstrating that it would be impossible for evolution *not* to happen, is a very important "paradigm shift", if you'll excuse the manamgement-speak. :)

I look forward to hammy's thoughts...

cbl.

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the claims you make about ID, specifically

a) that macro-evolution is prevented

b) It simply says "I can't see how evolution can explain feature X, therefore God did it".

[sphenisc]

Since I have a feeling hammy's coming: Can someone please define "macro-evolution"?

Here's a clue : Google "definition" "Macro-evolution" ;)

[Crispy Duck]

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the claims you make about ID, specifically

a) that macro-evolution is prevented

b) It simply says "I can't see how evolution can explain feature X, therefore God did it".

Hmmm... good challenge. I can't be bothered looking up specific references; everyone reading this thread knows what I'm talking about. Proponents of ID have claimed, amongst other things, that bacterial flagella and the blood-clotting system are too complex to have evolved via the accepted process of micro-evolution, and that therefore must have been intelligently designed (by God). They also claim that the accepted process of micro-evolution could not have allowed a common ancestor to diverge into both humans and chimps, or both fish and whales, or both animals and plants.

This goes back to the parenthetical question in my first post - do IDers claim that macro-evolution can't happen, or simply that it hasn't happened? Or are you implying that IDers believe macro-evolution (ie speciation etc) can and does happen?

[sphenisc]

Hmmm... good challenge. I can't be bothered looking up specific references; everyone reading this thread knows what I'm talking about. Proponents of ID have claimed, amongst other things, that bacterial flagella and the blood-clotting system are too complex to have evolved via the accepted process of micro-evolution, and that therefore must have been intelligently designed (by God). They also claim that the accepted process of micro-evolution could not have allowed a common ancestor to diverge into both humans and chimps, or both fish and whales, or both animals and plants.

This goes back to the parenthetical question in my first post - do IDers claim that macro-evolution can't happen, or simply that it hasn't happened? Or are you implying that IDers believe macro-evolution (ie speciation etc) can and does happen?

I appreciate your honesty. Though, if you're unwilling to support the accusations you've made, don't be surprised if others can't be bothered to answer your questions. I'm saying that I don't believe your claims because a) ID specifically avoids any reference to God, b) I've seen no ID description which refers to a macroevolutionary 'barrier'.

What IDers believe is up to them, as far as I can see there is nothing in ID which procludes macroevolution.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Picture evolution as trajectories through phenotype-space. Phenotype-space has millions, perhaps billions, of dimensions. A particular species traces a path through this space. A new species forks from an existing one, first on a path that is closely parallel to the original, and then on a path that diverges more and more as time passes. At some point the distance is great enough that we talk about a new genus, family, etc. The distances that make us talk of new taxonomies are quite fuzzy.

The environment puts constraints on the trajectories through phenotype-space. In fact, most points in the space are not viable; there are many more ways to be dead than to be alive. Some IDers claim that there is another contraint on the trajectories, that something prevents two trajectories from diverging further than a certain distance in phenotype-space. Does anyone have a clue how such a constraint might work?

~~ Paul

[Roboramma]

I appreciate your honesty. Though, if you're unwilling to support the accusations you've made, don't be surprised if others can't be bothered to answer your questions.
Sphenisc. I think it's quite cool that you're sticking up for the ID side of the argument. It's very easy for a group of people who all agree to let little falsehoods slide by, or not even notice them. So cool.
Anyway, to the above, I think he'd be more willing to support his accusations if you were to say exactly what you think needs to be supported. Do you suggest they are false, or simply that he hasn't given the evidence necessary to determine whether they're true?

I'm saying that I don't believe your claims because a) ID specifically avoids any reference to God,

Except when they're talking to believers.

b) I've seen no ID description which refers to a macroevolutionary 'barrier'.

What IDers believe is up to them, as far as I can see there is nothing in ID which procludes macroevolution.

Well, I don't know whether that's true or not. But I don't think the argument requires that they do. Here's how I see it.

Macroevolution is inevitable. Given enough time any population of reproducing organisms will diversify into a mirade of life forms, occupying many different niches, each well adapted to it's life. (that is, if they don't all go extinct first), or are out competed in all niches but the one to which they are well adapted by other organisms that do follow this general pattern.
Many will evolve complex structures. While ID might argue that some specific complex structures cannot evolve, they cannot suggest that none could. Many would, in fact. Some would even evolve to the point that we wouldn't able to say what exactly was the evolutionary pathway that brought them about.

This is exactly the way we see the world. The fact that we can't explain every adaptation right away should be expected.

[Hawk one]

I'm saying that I don't believe your claims because a) ID specifically avoids any reference to God,

Oh, do they now? (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_1.html)

[PatKelley]

Perhaps you could provide evidence of the claims you make about ID, specifically

a) that macro-evolution is prevented

Try this quote on for size, as it's both from the DI and a recent article (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=News&id=2884&callingPage=discoMainPage) referring to Dover.
And they generally have no problem with much of evolutionary theory, which can — in part —be stated as the change of species over time. The fossil record, they agree, amply bears out this observation, which is known as micro-evolution.

Where they dissent is in what’s known as macro-evolution — the transformation over time of a species into another species. The distinction is drawn in “Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins,” the alternative text endorsed by the Dover school board:

“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their primitive features intact, rather than gradually developing.”-(emphasis added)

That would appear to fit the bill for "macro-evolution is prevented."


b) It simply says "I can't see how evolution can explain feature X, therefore God did it".
Well, let's just see...
In other words, their argument is not so much with evolution per se as it is with what they see as the failure of evolution to account for how it all started. It is perfectly reasonable as science, they believe, to explore whether an outside agent triggered diversity of complex biological structures seemingly engineered to sustain life on Earth.
It assiduously, in this press release, avoids saying "God" but does assert that "Intelligentagencydiddit" for what they view as differences between species i.e. purported targets for "macroevolution" which they reject.

[Crispy Duck]

From the Discovery Institute's "Top Questions and Answers about ID":

3. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common
ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory.

(For some reason, I'm not considered worthy to post links).

So I must admit, Sphenisc, you're right that ID, or at least one part of the Institute's website, does not deny macro-evolution. To me, this is even more bizarre. Can it really be the case that IDers accept that everything that has ever lived on this planet was the product of random mutation and natural selection, with the specific exceptions of flagella and blood clotting?

Curiouser and curiouser.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And the eye. Don't forget the eye.

~~ Paul

[sphenisc]

Oh, do they now? (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_1.html)

ID theory/conjecture is distinct from 'the ID movement', point 1) of this site attempts to confuse the two, as does your use of the word 'they'. What IDers do in the privacy of their own publications is up to them, I'm talking about ID theory.

point 2) refers to legislation on educational standards, this is not part of ID theory.

point 3) I'm pretty sure that IVP will publish the book of Esther, that doesn't mean that it contains any reference to God.

point 4) Again a reference to the ID movement, not ID theory.

point 5) "ID is blatantly anti-religious if the religion is one they disagree with." Again a switch (mid-sentence!) from discussing ID theory to IDers.

None of the points on this site support the claim that ID theory avoids specific reference to God.

[Hawk one]

Well of course the quotes are about the ID movement, because that's all ID is. There is no such thing as an ID theory, at best a couple of speculative hypothesises that doesn't have any evidence for it.

[PatKelley]

ID theory/conjecture is distinct from 'the ID movement', point 1) of this site attempts to confuse the two, as does your use of the word 'they'. What IDers do in the privacy of their own publications is up to them, I'm talking about ID theory.

point 2) refers to legislation on educational standards, this is not part of ID theory.

point 3) I'm pretty sure that IVP will publish the book of Esther, that doesn't mean that it contains any reference to God.

point 4) Again a reference to the ID movement, not ID theory.

point 5) "ID is blatantly anti-religious if the religion is one they disagree with." Again a switch (mid-sentence!) from discussing ID theory to IDers.

None of the points on this site support the claim that ID theory avoids specific reference to God.
But you do admit it does draw a line between micro and macro evolution, and eschews the latter in favor of the intervention of an intelligent designer...

[sphenisc]

Try this quote on for size, as it's both from the DI and a recent article (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=News&id=2884&callingPage=discoMainPage) referring to Dover.
-(emphasis added)

That would appear to fit the bill for "macro-evolution is prevented."


Well, let's just see...

It assiduously, in this press release, avoids saying "God" but does assert that "Intelligentagencydiddit" for what they view as differences between species i.e. purported targets for "macroevolution" which they reject.

Okay, "dissent is in what's known as macro-evolution" is not the same as "macro-evolution is prevented."

By analogy, Einstein 'dissented' from what was known as the law of gravity, this was not the same as 'gravity is prevented'. He proposed a different mechanism to account for the observed phenomena, he didn't reject the observations. ID does the same thing.

You support by point a) with "It assiduously, in this press release, avoids saying "God" ", thanks for that.

[Pastor Bentonit]

Okay, "dissent is in what's known as macro-evolution" is not the same as "macro-evolution is prevented."

By analogy, Einstein 'dissented' from what was known as the law of gravity, this was not the same as 'gravity is prevented'. He proposed a different mechanism to account for the observed phenomena, he didn't reject the observations. ID does the same thing.

You support by point a) with "It assiduously, in this press release, avoids saying "God" ", thanks for that.
(Emphasis mine)

1. What is the mechanism for gravity, either in the "Newtonian" or "Einsteinian" sense?! In absence of detailed mechanisms, what predictions can we make from the theory of gravity?
2. What mechanism does IDC suggest, again? Oh, and what about the predictive value of IDC...compared to, say, the theory of evolution? What predictions do necessarily follow from intelligent design creationism?!

[sphenisc]

From the Discovery Institute's "Top Questions and Answers about ID":



(For some reason, I'm not considered worthy to post links).

So I must admit, Sphenisc, you're right that ID, or at least one part of the Institute's website, does not deny macro-evolution. To me, this is even more bizarre. Can it really be the case that IDers accept that everything that has ever lived on this planet was the product of random mutation and natural selection, with the specific exceptions of flagella and blood clotting?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Thanks for that, it's great to be on a forum where people discuss issues, examine the evidence and are prepared to change their mind accordingly.
(Sorry, that sounds a bit patronising when I read it back - it's not meant to be.)

I strongly suspect that there are very few "IDers [who] accept that everything that has ever lived on this planet was the product of random mutation and natural selection, with the specific exceptions of flagella and blood clotting.", because many of them will be pet owners, eat farm produce and have considered with whom they want to have children.
:)

[Crispy Duck]

Guys, guys,

Please don't let my lovely thread get diverted into an argument about who the intelligent designer is.

My point is very specific: both micro- and macro-evolution follow absolutely inevitably from the basic behaviour of any system of any replicators. There isn't even a distinction between any two such levels of evolution. For ID to even "propose a different mechanism to account for the observed phenomena", it must first show why this automatic, inevitable behaviour does not apply to DNA-based replicators.

The key difference is that evolution doesn't have "explain" speciation etc as separate phenomena from mutation, selection etc - it just happens. ID is often criticised for not making falsifiable hypotheses, but here is a specific area where one is needed - they claim a "different mechanism" is needed for DNA-based replicators - why? What's stopping their behaviour following that of any generic system of replicators?

Anyway, after 23 posts, it seems the answer to the question in the thread title is "nothing".

[sphenisc]

(Emphasis mine)

1. What is the mechanism for gravity, either in the "Newtonian" or "Einsteinian" sense?! In absence of detailed mechanisms, what predictions can we make from the theory of gravity?
2. What mechanism does IDC suggest, again? Oh, and what about the predictive value of IDC...compared to, say, the theory of evolution? What predictions do necessarily follow from intelligent design creationism?!

1. a) Matter instanteously generates a force which varies directly with the the mass and inverse squarely with distance.
b) Matter warps space/time, this warping is experienced as gravitation and is limited to c.

I won't go into a more detailed explanation due to
i) this part of your question not being the point you're REALLY interested in.
ii) my complete ignorance.


2) The intervention of an intelligent designer(s). I made no claims about predictive value - perhaps you read that somewhere else?

[sphenisc]

Guys, guys,

My point is very specific: both micro- and macro-evolution follow absolutely inevitably from the basic behaviour of any system of any replicators. There isn't even a distinction between any two such levels of evolution. For ID to even "propose a different mechanism to account for the observed phenomena", it must first show why this automatic, inevitable behaviour does not apply to DNA-based replicators.

The key difference is that evolution doesn't have "explain" speciation etc as separate phenomena from mutation, selection etc - it just happens. ID is often criticised for not making falsifiable hypotheses, but here is a specific area where one is needed - they claim a "different mechanism" is needed for DNA-based replicators - why? What's stopping their behaviour following that of any generic system of replicators?

Anyway, after 23 posts, it seems the answer to the question in the thread title is "nothing".

Sorry the "evolutiondidit" doesn't wash ;) That 'etc' after 'selection' hides an awful lot of hidden requirements before you can say speciation 'just happens' as a result of mutation, selection etc.

The ID claim is not just that a '"different mechanism" is needed', it is that a different mechanism in actual fact operated. It is about the history of life on earth. There was nothing stopping DNA-based replicators' behaviour following that of any generic system of replicators, the claim is simply that this did not happen.

[cbish]

I made no claims about predictive value - perhaps you read that somewhere else?

Of course you didn't. You can't. No one can. This is why ID is not and never will be science.

[hammegk]

LOL. So many strawmen.

from talkoriginsIn evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.

Then we segue into the question, "What defines species?", the obvious differences in critters we see all around us, and in the fossil record.

IC/ID as I see it makes one point. The chance of the correct sequence of events -- current apex us -- happening is infinitesmally small. Evolutionists must argue that the chances are high, since these genotype and/or phenotype discontinuities are a fact. Our own BillHoyt tabled the suggestion that chaos theory & strange attractors could be involved. How would that fit in The Theory? What would be the parameters of interest?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The ID claim is not just that a '"different mechanism" is needed', it is that a different mechanism in actual fact operated. It is about the history of life on earth. There was nothing stopping DNA-based replicators' behaviour following that of any generic system of replicators, the claim is simply that this did not happen.
And the claim requires either evidence or logical proof. Otherwise it is just a claim, worth about $.59 on the open market.

~~ Paul

[PatKelley]

Okay, "dissent is in what's known as macro-evolution" is not the same as "macro-evolution is prevented."

By analogy, Einstein 'dissented' from what was known as the law of gravity, this was not the same as 'gravity is prevented'. He proposed a different mechanism to account for the observed phenomena, he didn't reject the observations. ID does the same thing.

You support by point a) with "It assiduously, in this press release, avoids saying "God" ", thanks for that.

Ah, so then more evidence.
3. Has science shown that macroevolution is fact?

Science takes the position that macroevolution is undisputed fact and insists that it be taught as such in public schools. However, macroevolution has never been observed...not in the laboratory and not in the wild...and scientists plainly admit in the mainstream scientific literature that the microevolutionary processes observed in living populations cannot explain the large scale biological changes and adaptations hypothesized to have taken place in the past.

In addition, science has not identified even a remotely plausible mechanism for explaining the diversity and complexity of life.

Macroevolution may have taken place in the past as claimed, however, it has never been observed and because it has never been observed, there is no basis for claiming that it is fact and it should not be presented as such in public schools.
-Source (http://www.nmidnet.org/8questions.html)


Paleontologists have not found the extensive support for transitional forms we would expect to see in the fossil record if macroevolution were true. In short, macroevolution has not been proven and remains a theory. We cannot continue to teach macroevolution as the only scientific explanation we have for life's origins. The empirical scientific evidence of the origins of life should be taught in our schools along with the significant and viable models that the evidence supports. The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution should be taught as a scientific theory, not proven fact, and it should be taught alongside the scientific theories of creation and intelligent design.
- Source (http://campus.murraystate.edu/staff/scott.thile/Christian/Design.html)(Thesis paper)

"Why is evolution unable to account for the design in biology? Because there are examples of design that cannot have arisen via a sequence of functional intermediates.

"Evolution requires that every structure in biology, whether at the molecular or the morphological level, arose via a series of functional intermediate forms. In order for evolution to create the appearance of design, functional intermediates between all designs must exist. And the sequence of intermediates must be sufficiently gradual so that each successive form could have arisen from the previous form via normal biological variation. ID claims that at least in some cases no such sequence is possible."
Cornelius G. Hunter, Darwin's Proof (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2003), 120.
Gradual change over time and species arising from other species defines Macroevolution; the above statement specifically addresses this argument of "sequence of intermediates" that I displayed above; the argument being it should have been a fin the whole time, when that is not necessary, or really makes sense. It is rejected, macroevolution is, with the intermediates argument as the barrier, in addition to information theory arguments (no new information added, etc.) information decay arguments, and chances of deleterious mutation arguments which are also claimed to be against macroevolution.

These are all presented as barriers by ID. The intermediates is a rehashed creationist argument, the rest are de novo arguments in statistics and probability. All are presented as barriers to macroevolution, which is specifically referring to extrapolation of microevolution to new forms.





Well, that precludes the macroevolution-separate-from-darwinian principle.

[sphenisc]

Of course you didn't. You can't. No one can. This is why ID is not and never will be science.

Evidence please.

[PatKelley]

Evidence please.
Hey, isn't that my line? And check out the thread "The Mastadon in the Room" for some questions of my own regarding extinction and a lack of defined mechanism for diversity in ID.

[BillHoyt]

Evidence please.

Balderdash. You have the onus on the wrong parties. It is up to ID to marshall evidence it is a science. It has not done so. Period. Care to quibble? If I were to claim to be the King of Siam and someone were to assert "the h*** you are," are we to expect a call for the denier to marshall the evidence? Hardly.

[sphenisc]

Balderdash. You have the onus on the wrong parties. It is up to ID to marshall evidence it is a science. It has not done so. Period. Care to quibble? If I were to claim to be the King of Siam and someone were to assert "the h*** you are," are we to expect a call for the denier to marshall the evidence? Hardly.

Poppycock, You made four claims in four sentences, the first I will agree with, the other three are YOUR claims - you provide evidence.

[cbish]

Evidence please.

What!?! That's not how the games played, Rufus. Cite one prediction ID can make.

[Bronze Dog]

Negative claims don't require evidence. Postive ones do.

"ID is science" is a postive claim.
"ID is not science" is a negative claim.

[cbish]

Plus are we going to have to define a scientific theory for the umpteenth, billionth time?

[sphenisc]

Negative claims don't require evidence. Postive ones do.

"ID is science" is a postive claim.
"ID is not science" is a negative claim.

Brilliant, then Bronzedog is not telling the truth. :D

[sphenisc]

What!?! That's not how the games played, Rufus. Cite one prediction ID can make.

No, you made the claim - you support it.

[BillHoyt]

Poppycock, You made four claims in four sentences, the first I will agree with, the other three are YOUR claims - you provide evidence.
Negatory. The burden of evidence does not work this way. What about that don't you understand?

[sphenisc]

Negatory. The burden of evidence does not work this way. What about that don't you understand?

All of it
From Wikipedia " burden of Proof"
Science and Other uses
Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's repsonsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.

[RichardR]

Evidence please.

:tr:

[Hawk one]

sphenic: So why haven't anyone provided evidence for ID being a scientific theory, then?

[cbish]

Apologies to Crispy Duck for the derail.

[PatKelley]

On a lighter note, it would appear that I did unearth some other arguments in ID against "macroevolution" specifically besides the old chestnut of intermediate forms not being equipped to survive.

There is the "information theory" approach, which posits that in a decaying system (a description of genetics subject to mutation) no information can be added through the error producing mechanism. In other words, asking for new information in evolution would be like asking for ice to form in warm water: while it is technically possible, it is so unlikely as to be ludicrous. This is not a valid argument, but it represents a summation of one of the information based arguments.

Probability based arguments exist as well, arguing for an astronomically unlikely series of events having to occur (and in this way they are kind of a new incarnation of unfit intermediates) resulting in the idea of irreduceable complexity. It's odd, but until this conversation I hadn't realized that "irreduceable complexity" was just the same old chestnut served up in a pie.

[sphenisc]

sphenic: So why haven't anyone provided evidence for ID being a scientific theory, then?

I don't know, I guess because the people who claim it isn't can't be bothered to support their claim?

[BillHoyt]

All of it
From Wikipedia " burden of Proof"
Science and Other uses
Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's repsonsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it.
Please read this again. It supports my point entirely, but you've missed its meaning.

[PatKelley]

I don't know, I guess because the people who claim it isn't can't be bothered to support their claim?
Please go back and review my second commentary. I have supported the initial statement that macroevolution is referring to microevolution across species boundaries, that ID does not support such an idea, and that it specifically posits multiple mechanisms that go against macroevolution and/or prevent it being likely.

[sphenisc]

Please read this again. It supports my point entirely, but you've missed its meaning.

Please read this again. It supports my point entirely, but you've missed its meaning

[BillHoyt]

Please read this again. It supports my point entirely, but you've missed its meaning
Stop playing games. I've no time for two-year olds. Go back and read the last sentence. Last chance.

[BillHoyt]

Crispy Duck,

The basic ID claim is that certain biological features are "irreducibly complex." By that they mean, there is no way it could have arisen in pieces, steps or stages. What they actually demonstrate with this claim, I'm afraid, is that they both lack the imagination to see how those steps could have arisen and been supported by selection pressures, and that they've not reviewed the clear and compelling evidence that the very features they point to as irreducibly complex did the very thing they say was impossible - arose piecemeal.

[Hawk one]

I don't know, I guess because the people who claim it isn't can't be bothered to support their claim?

Well, it's hard to provide evidence for that ID is not a scientific theory when nobody wants to say what this scientific theory actually consists of. I mean, when the most prominent IDers like Behe and Dembski can't provide anything but strawmen attack on evolution, cheap rhetorics, and downright lies, then one has to wonder what the so-called "theory" of ID is about, eh?

[cbish]

I don't know, I guess because the people who claim it isn't can't be bothered to support their claim?
*SIGH* A scientific theory is an explanation. One thing that makes it science is that it has predictive power. If the predictions hold true via observation or experimentation, then our confidence in the theory grows. ID does no such thing, therefore it's not science.

[sphenisc]

BillHoyt, what part of the last sentence don't you get??



[QUOTE=PatKelley;1279753]Ah, so then more evidence.
QUOTE]

My apologies, I thought I'd responded to this commentary, but checking back my post seems to have disappeared (ahem...) I take it this is the second commentary you refer to?

Quote 1 - doesn't refer to ID, so I don't see how it can be used to argue that ID prevents macroevolution.

Quote 2 - this is from Scott Thile, a Piano and Instrument Technician, is there a reason you regard him as an authority on ID. Even if there is a reason, there is nothing in the quote which says ID prevents macroevolution.

Quote 3 - this appears to argue exactly opposite of your claim. It is microevolution per se which constrains macroevolution, ID relaxes, indeed permits macroevolution in ways which microevolution wouldn't allow.

I'm not sure I follow your final points. Perhaps you could simplify them for me a bit?

Thanks

[BillHoyt]

BillHoyt, what part of the last sentence don't you get??

I get it, sphincter; you don't. You're simply passing gas, and smelling up the forum.

[sphenisc]

I get it, sphincter; you don't. You're simply passing gas, and smelling up the forum.

I chalk that up as a win by descent to abuse. I'm off home, good night everybody! :)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Raise your hand if you're starting not to give a damn whether people think ID is the cat's pajamas.

:greekflag

~~ Paul

[BillHoyt]

Raise your hand if you're starting not to give a damn whether people think ID is the cat's pajamas.

:greekflag

~~ Paul
Nah, the cat's pajamas are clearly irreducibly complex. What good would the cat's half-pajamas be? None whatsoever. Clearly selection could not have support half-pajamas long enough for the cat's pajamas to have evolved.

[PatKelley]

Ah, so then more evidence.

My apologies, I thought I'd responded to this commentary, but checking back my post seems to have disappeared (ahem...) I take it this is the second commentary you refer to?

Quote 1 - doesn't refer to ID, so I don't see how it can be used to argue that ID prevents macroevolution.

Except, although as you check quote 2 and its source, you did not check that this is from the New Mexico Intelligent Design Network...and it's not about intelligent design? It establishes the arguments used, here by self-admitted ID proponents, to provide a case against macroevolution specifically, defined as part of darwinian doctrine.

Quote 2 - this is from Scott Thile, a Piano and Instrument Technician, is there a reason you regard him as an authority on ID. Even if there is a reason, there is nothing in the quote which says ID prevents macroevolution.

Within the paper, Dr. Dudley Eirich, a microbiologist, ID proponent, and a former theistic evolutionist is quoted:
"According to evolutionary theory, any component, which doesn't offer an advantage to an organism, i.e. doesn't function, will be lost or discarded. How such a structure [as the flagellum] could have evolved in a gradual, step-by-step process as required by classical Darwinian evolution is an insurmountable obstacle to evolutionists"
That appears to be a rather blatant assault on evolutionary theory stating that irreducible complexity, the crux of the ID argument, is equally an impediment to evolution. As ID claims to support microevolution, one can only assume they refer to the remainder of Darwinian doctrine; macroevolution.
Until I am shown otherwise, I do not yet recognize a specific degree requirement to discuss, critique, explain or endorse ID. Please, if a PhIDD exists, enlighten me.
Quote 3 - this appears to argue exactly opposite of your claim. It is microevolution per se which constrains macroevolution, ID relaxes, indeed permits macroevolution in ways which microevolution wouldn't allow.

No, it specifically states "ID claims that at least in some cases no such sequence is possible" referring to transitional forms. It is specifically ID that is setting up the obstacle to intermediate forms as not "possible."

I'm not sure I follow your final points. Perhaps you could simplify them for me a bit?

Thanks

Here's the simple answer: in no wise, in any of my findings regarding dissertations discussions and descriptions of ID and evolution did I find an addressing of macroevolution other than as a "failed" theory of Darwinian evolution, addressed from the standpoint of Intelligent Design.

[fishbob]

On a lighter note, it would appear that I did unearth some other arguments in ID against "macroevolution" specifically besides the old chestnut of intermediate forms not being equipped to survive.

There is the "information theory" approach, which posits that in a decaying system (a description of genetics subject to mutation) no information can be added through the error producing mechanism. In other words, asking for new information in evolution would be like asking for ice to form in warm water: while it is technically possible, it is so unlikely as to be ludicrous. This is not a valid argument, but it represents a summation of one of the information based arguments.

Probability based arguments exist as well, arguing for an astronomically unlikely series of events having to occur (and in this way they are kind of a new incarnation of unfit intermediates) resulting in the idea of irreduceable complexity. It's odd, but until this conversation I hadn't realized that "irreduceable complexity" was just the same old chestnut served up in a pie.

1 - So far, nobody has defined what exactly is meant by 'macroevolution'. So far, nobody has presented evidence in support of whatever the hypothesized macroevolution is supposed to be.

2 - The information theory approach to evolution is flawed - based on a strawman concept of evolution.

3 - Probability based arguments attack evolution based on mischaracterization or misunderstanding of natural selection.

[UrsulaV]

So, without getting into the previous going debate, I'll just ask, flat out, and as politely as possible:

Will someone who either believes or respects ID please offer li'l ol me several examples of positive predictions made by ID? Stuff that would follow from there being an intelligent designer and not from natural selection that we could then look for in the field?

I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm not saying you have to do it, I'm not waving any burdens of proof, I'm not accusing anybody of anything, I'm just asking, nicely, please--can anyone who follows ID please offer several such testable positive predictions?

And if you can't do so, can you tell me why you won't, even if it's just "I don't feel like it!" or "I can't be bothered," or "You're just a tool of the Darwinian establishment," please?

That's all I ask. You don't have to do it. Seems like the previous bit derailed into "who had to do what" and who had the burden of proof. So I'll say, plainly, that there's no earthly reason you should have to prove yourself to me. Nobody is obligated to answer my question except from their basic decency as a human being towards the curious. That's all I ask. Please.

Thank you.

[.13.]

There is the "information theory" approach, which posits that in a decaying system (a description of genetics subject to mutation) no information can be added through the error producing mechanism. In other words, asking for new information in evolution would be like asking for ice to form in warm water: while it is technically possible, it is so unlikely as to be ludicrous. This is not a valid argument, but it represents a summation of one of the information based arguments.

I'm not familiar with information theory. But this raised a question:
Wouldn't the error producing mechanisms add information when there is more information attached to existing gene?

Crude analogy:
We have a 'tree'. Then random error occurs and 'h' gets inserted into 'tree' givin 'three'.

Or have I misunderstood ID's information argument?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

A combination of error-producing mutations and selection can decrease the uncertainty of a DNA sequence and thus increase its information content. The selection process is required to gain information.

If you want to play with a simulation of this, I humbly recommend:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/papers/ev/evj/

~~ Paul

[Iamme]

Did oxygen, water, gold and diamonds "macro" evolve from hydrogen gas?

I have been laying awake at night pondering this as to figure out that if THAT can happen...that perhaps organic macro evolution can occur as well.

But I am currently stuck on the accepted fact that if this is purportedly true and proven, scientifically...still asking myself that if that is true...what forces enabled this to be true without any kind of guiding mind behind these processees. As in... was it also just chance that allowed the laws of atomic structure, gravity and electro-magnetism to randomly take place?

As far as the argument that there is no evidence of missing links, I am often watching the animal planet and they will show something, like..the other day they showed the skull of some named animal, like a gazele or soemthing, and I remember saying, "Why that looks like the head of a horse!" There are a lot of species of animals that do resemble other species. So what is this big problem about there not being any missing links. THAT argument I could never understand.

...............................


But now you guys are probably confused. You probably don't know which side of the fence I am coming from. Like I have said before...I am a truth seeker. I will listen to all sides of the argument. Hopefuly there will be more years on earth to try to figure out this riddle of all riddles.

This morning I was thinking about what evolutionary cause could have made an organism evolve from a single cell replicator of itself, to make 2 separate creatures that would have to come together to procreate. What mutating or other forces could have caused this? (I suppose I could easily find this through Google, in seconds, I suppose you are going to tell me. ). To me, this is the most vexing of the evolutionary questions. More so than the eye. More so than birds getting wings/flight...as the procreation between 2 separate creatures requires that one has to know about the other. What is the mechanism at work that could recognize that one creature has to have one organ and another creature has to have this other organ, so that the two fit together (there is no almost here, as either this process works or it doesn't!. You don't sort of slowly have an almost pregnancy!).. and produce the seperate ingredients in their bodies to make the procreation process work. Is this another idiotic thought?

[PatKelley]

Did oxygen, water, gold and diamonds "macro" evolve from hydrogen gas?

I have been laying awake at night pondering this as to figure out that if THAT can happen...that perhaps organic macro evolution can occur as well.

But I am currently stuck on the accepted fact that if this is purportedly true and proven, scientifically...still asking myself that if that is true...what forces enabled this to be true without any kind of guiding mind behind these processees. As in... was it also just chance that allowed the laws of atomic structure, gravity and electro-magnetism to randomly take place?

As far as the argument that there is no evidence of missing links, I am often watching the animal planet and they will show something, like..the other day they showed the skull of some named animal, like a gazele or soemthing, and I remember saying, "Why that looks like the head of a horse!" There are a lot of species of animals that do resemble other species. So what is this big problem about there not being any missing links. THAT argument I could never understand.

...............................


But now you guys are probably confused. You probably don't know which side of the fence I am coming from. Like I have said before...I am a truth seeker. I will listen to all sides of the argument. Hopefuly there will be more years on earth to try to figure out this riddle of all riddles.

This morning I was thinking about what evolutionary cause could have made an organism evolve from a single cell replicator of itself, to make 2 separate creatures that would have to come together to procreate. What mutating or other forces could have caused this? (I suppose I could easily find this through Google, in seconds, I suppose you are going to tell me. ). To me, this is the most vexing of the evolutionary questions. More so than the eye. More so than birds getting wings/flight...as the procreation between 2 separate creatures requires that one has to know about the other. What is the mechanism at work that could recognize that one creature has to have one organ and another creature has to have this other organ, so that the two fit together (there is no almost here, as either this process works or it doesn't!. You don't sort of slowly have an almost pregnancy!).. and produce the seperate ingredients in their bodies to make the procreation process work. Is this another idiotic thought?

The first information exchange within a population was in plasmids. These are rings of DNA with information encoding that can be exchanged and/or absorbed from other single-celled organisms. It doesn't even have to be the same species; as resistance to antibiotics can be conferred between separate bacterial populations with plasmid exchange. Since the single-celled organism is both the somatic and germ cell line, any DNA exchange affects both expression and fitness of the parent as well as the offspring. A more formal exchange of micronuclei takes place in paramecia, which could be seen as the first sexual reproduction. As cells became specialized in a population to do different jobs, the germ cells were the only ones that could perform the fusion and information exchange necessary to incorporate another cells attributes, or half of them at least. The increased rate of mutation that this confers to otherwise large somatic organisms allows for mutation distribution at a rate faster than somatic organism division, and keeps the exchange simple and straightforward, allowing for a faster rate of mutation to become distributed through a population in a shorter period of time in larger organisms.

The first sexual organisms essentially had both sets of gametes and were hermaphroditic; sexual specialization is a later development, and the bifurcation of these roles is subtle in some species, and rather profound in others (the deep-sea anglerfish being an excellent example of a profound difference in male and female...), however the ability to influence this process through such effects as hormones or even temperature change argues for sexual specialization as a later development.

Just so you know, the breakthroughs in animal structure come with the advent of repetition of modular sequences, whether simply an increase in population allowing for specialization (Man O' War jellyfish, sponges, and so on) to body segment repetition allowing for modular specialization (worms and arrow-worms with redundant body segments that could be modularized and specialized, or radial organisms that develop asymmetries or specialization).

[PatKelley]

1 - So far, nobody has defined what exactly is meant by 'macroevolution'. So far, nobody has presented evidence in support of whatever the hypothesized macroevolution is supposed to be.

2 - The information theory approach to evolution is flawed - based on a strawman concept of evolution.

3 - Probability based arguments attack evolution based on mischaracterization or misunderstanding of natural selection.

Please read the thread. Several times, I have provided the ID definition of macroevolution, which is the "doctrine" that microevolution changes can add up to speciation and all of the biodiversity that we observe, which ID rejects. As it is a distinction that is only made by ID, and is then refuted by ID, it really doesn't truly represent any real arguments in evolutionary mechanisms. I am not arguing for the terminology in either sense, but ID proponents establish an artificial bifurcation of changes within a species and changes at levels higher than species (changes that led to the distribution of organisms defined in a genus, family, order, class, and so on). Cladistic diagrams for them do not extend actual relationships of descent from common ancestors but only represent current population descriptions of organisms that arose spontaneously at some pont in the past.

[Crispy Duck]

Sorry the "evolutiondidit" doesn't wash ;) That 'etc' after 'selection' hides an awful lot of hidden requirements before you can say speciation 'just happens' as a result of mutation, selection etc.

The ID claim is not just that a '"different mechanism" is needed', it is that a different mechanism in actual fact operated. It is about the history of life on earth. There was nothing stopping DNA-based replicators' behaviour following that of any generic system of replicators, the claim is simply that this did not happen.

This sums up and confirms the emptiness of ID "theory" for me, so this thread has served its purpose. Sphenisc - you seem to be arguing that unadulterated evolution is perfectly capable of explaining the diversity of life on Earth, but that throwing an intelligent designer into the mix is necessary anyway. Game over.

I'd be interested to hear what you believe the "awful lot of hidden requirements" for speciation might comprise. As soon as you accept that micro-evolution happens, that a population's average characteristics will drift over time, speciation is totally inevitable. All that is required is that two initially similar populations become isolated (perhaps an isthmus floods, separating two land masses); both populations will continue to drift, but there is no mechanism requiring them to both drift in the same direction. After some number of generations (tens, hundreds?), the two populations will have diverged sufficiently that we would consider them different species. ID must propose a mechanism preventing such divergent drift, but it does not. Without such a mechanism, sending out search parties looking for examples of irreducible complexity is premature.

I'm genuinely interested to know - is this argument as blindingly obvious to anyone else as it is to me? To anyone who doesn't believe speciation could happen as above - do you agree that the above mechanism is reasonable, in a generic system of replicators? If not, why not? And if yes, why would this process not occur amongst DNA-based populations?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm genuinely interested to know - is this argument as blindingly obvious to anyone else as it is to me? To anyone who doesn't believe speciation could happen as above - do you agree that the above mechanism is reasonable, in a generic system of replicators? If not, why not? And if yes, why would this process not occur amongst DNA-based populations?
I think the speciation argument may be slipping out of the ID paradigm. After all, as you say, it doesn't take all that much for two populations to become unable to interbreed. Anyway, many biologists define species as two population that do not interbreed, as opposed to cannot interbreed.

The macroevolution argument may now be one of gross characteristic change. "It's not possible to grow hands on a snake." This fits better with the irreducible complexity argument anyway. First pick an IC mechanism and then claim it can't grow on some unrelated animal: Trees can't grow eyes, you know! Two impossibilities rolled into one example.

~~ Paul

[Rasmus]

Trees can't grow eyes, you know!

Do we even know that? Granted, trees don't often do grow eyes - but it makes me wonder if they could.

I guess it is impracible to run an experiment with trees; but would it be possible to evolve a bacteria into a worm or something?

All it would take is time and effort and - of course - tons of money. Pick any bacteria you like, and let it breed. Check the DNA of whatever results you get and select those that are closer to known WORM-DNA to continue the experiment.

I know it's not how things really went, since both the bacteria and worm that we have to start with will have an unknown ancestry - but could this work? And how long would it take?

[chipmunk stew]

Do we even know that? Granted, trees don't often do grow eyes - but it makes me wonder if they could.For a true eye, you need a nervous system. I don't know of any trees that've developed one of those. But most plants have light-sensitive cells, and some have mechanisms that respond to the direction of the light source, so I suppose hypothetically a tree could grow a flora version of an eye.

I guess it is impracible to run an experiment with trees; but would it be possible to evolve a bacteria into a worm or something?

All it would take is time and effort and - of course - tons of money. Pick any bacteria you like, and let it breed. Check the DNA of whatever results you get and select those that are closer to known WORM-DNA to continue the experiment.

I know it's not how things really went, since both the bacteria and worm that we have to start with will have an unknown ancestry - but could this work? And how long would it take?It would probably take a looooong time, and to go specifically from a bacteria to a worm would be near impossible. The great majority of time since life began was populated by single-cell critters. There's no guarantee that you'd be able to get the bacteria to develop the necessary "glue" to make the transition to a multicellular form, and even less guarantee that you could push it to a worm-y form.

It would be a better experiment (although still prohibitively expensive and time-consuming) to start with a population of some multi-cell critter, split it into two or more sub-groups, apply a different set of selection pressures to each sub-group, and see if you end up with indisputably distinct variations of form and function.

Fortunately, nature's already done this for us.

[Iamme]

Could the Venus fly trap be a missing link, of sorts? Aren't there mechanisms going on with this plant that most normal plants don't possess? (As an aside: Do bees get eaten when trying to polinate them?:) )

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's not a missing link, because it's not missing.

http://biomechanics.bio.uci.edu/_html/nh_biomech/flytrap/flytrap.htm

~~ Paul

[Iamme]

Thanks for the link. I read it.

And yes. HA. You're right. It's not 'missing'. Ha. How stupicd of me. Maybe we should just say it is a 'link', then.

[burrahobbit]

IC/ID as I see it makes one point. The chance of the correct sequence of events -- current apex us -- happening is infinitesimally small.


Sorry for going back a page.

The real reason for ID is illustrated by this quote(emphasis mine)

Hammegk, there is [B]no[B] correct sequence of events. There is only a sequence of events that happens to have taken place. If you had gone back to the beginning and predicted that humans would evolve and then come back to find humans, then the probability would have been truly infinitesimally small. As it is, the argument from probability is worthless.

Apologies for excursion into elementary probability theory.

[Rasmus]

It would probably take a looooong time, and to go specifically from a bacteria to a worm would be near impossible.

Would it really be?

There *should* be a line of evolution that does indeed connect to the bacteria and the worm - trace back their ancestry over the past few million years or so and they should be linked.

The great majority of time since life began was populated by single-cell critters. There's no guarantee that you'd be able to get the bacteria to develop the necessary "glue" to make the transition to a multicellular form, and even less guarantee that you could push it to a worm-y form.

Well, obviously no guarantees; but I was thinking that if you kept breeding those mutations that were somewhat closer to the worm than the original bacteria you would eventually end up with the worm. (Assuming, of course, that it is possible ot evolve i na rather direct line; which might well not be the case.) But you could pick other species to try the experiment - breed a fish into a frog or something.

It would be a better experiment (although still prohibitively expensive and time-consuming) to start with a population of some multi-cell critter, split it into two or more sub-groups, apply a different set of selection pressures to each sub-group, and see if you end up with indisputably distinct variations of form and function.

True.

Frankly, I am just constantly annyed by the challenge of "breed me a man from an ape" that get's thrown around by just too many fundies. And I was thinmking if it would be possible to do that just for the hell of it.

Mind you, even someone was going to do it, it would only prove that evolution is possible (big news there, eh?) and not thatit ever happened; failure to do so wouldn't prove a thing - other than that my idea was probably a bit on the silly side of things.


Fortunately, nature's already done this for us.

Indeed.

Rasmus.

[sphenisc]

This sums up and confirms the emptiness of ID "theory" for me, so this thread has served its purpose. Sphenisc - you seem to be arguing that unadulterated evolution is perfectly capable of explaining the diversity of life on Earth, but that throwing an intelligent designer into the mix is necessary anyway. Game over.

I'd be interested to hear what you believe the "awful lot of hidden requirements" for speciation might comprise. As soon as you accept that micro-evolution happens, that a population's average characteristics will drift over time, speciation is totally inevitable. All that is required is that two initially similar populations become isolated (perhaps an isthmus floods, separating two land masses); both populations will continue to drift, but there is no mechanism requiring them to both drift in the same direction. After some number of generations (tens, hundreds?), the two populations will have diverged sufficiently that we would consider them different species. ID must propose a mechanism preventing such divergent drift, but it does not. Without such a mechanism, sending out search parties looking for examples of irreducible complexity is premature.

I'm genuinely interested to know - is this argument as blindingly obvious to anyone else as it is to me? To anyone who doesn't believe speciation could happen as above - do you agree that the above mechanism is reasonable, in a generic system of replicators? If not, why not? And if yes, why would this process not occur amongst DNA-based populations?

Thanks Crispy Duck, then my work here is done... (BTW My list would be pretty similar to list you provide in addition to mutation, selection.)

[Soapy Sam]

Evolution is evolution. "Micro " and "macro" have no useful significance that I can see. The concepts add nothing of value.
Individual creatures are subject to environmental pressures. Relative breeding success leads to redistribution of genetic varieties. Changed allelle ratios respond to environmental changes through physical or behavioural change in individuals, which affects populations, which affect habitats, which are part of the environment, which feeds back into individual success. Evolution occurs at every level from the DNA molecule through the organism, population and habitat.There is feedback at every level. Of course each level has different characters.One may study the eviolution of a species, so long as one keeps in mind that a species is what we define it to be and no more. Whether two populations can interbreed for instance, is wholly irrelevant. What matters is whether they do or do not.

Paul- a point worth noting- Not only are there areas (volumes??) in adaptive hyperspace which are inaccessible, but there appear to be preferred tracks as well- routes which are favoured by chemistry or thermodynamics for instance. All photosynthetic systems have common elements for example. Parallel evolution, at every level from the molecular to body shape, is an abundant phenomenon.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Then maybe strange attractors aren't irrelevant. When an evolutionary trajectory gets near certain preferred trajectories, it snaps to the preferred trajectory?

~~ Paul

[BillHoyt]

Then maybe strange attractors aren't irrelevant.
Does Angela Jolie count? When I look at her, I feel a great attractive force, but then find myself repulsed when I read about the weird things she's into.
When an evolutionary trajectory gets near certain preferred trajectories, it snaps to the preferred trajectory?
On a serious note, this is close to correct. Mathematically, there are actually three main types of selection, each of which yields different end results. When plotted as phase planes, one of these types looks similar to what you suggest, except that I can't call it "snapping to" so much as spiralling toward or away from key points.

[hammegk]

Hammegk, there is [B]no[B] correct sequence of events. There is only a sequence of events that happens to have taken place. If you had gone back to the beginning and predicted that humans would evolve and then come back to find humans, then the probability would have been truly infinitesimally small. As it is, the argument from probability is worthless.

Yes, WRT actual events, probability is 1. ID suggests the 'probability' of homo sap, even at abiogenesis, was much higher than 'infinitesmally small', and perhaps as pre-ordained by the laws of physics & chemistry as the universe was, and is, sub-atomically and cosmologically.


On a serious note, this is close to correct. Mathematically, there are actually three main types of selection, each of which yields different end results. When plotted as phase planes, one of these types looks similar to what you suggest, except that I can't call it "snapping to" so much as spiralling toward or away from key points.
Is the spiralling effect, rather than 'snapping to' experimentally confirmed, or is it hypothetical?

At microbiology level BronzeDog has stated elsewhere that the rate of mutation is independent of environmental stresses. You iirc had the same opinion; how well justified by actual data is this? We iirc did agree that at minimum preferred 'break-points' where mutation most likely occur do exist.

[BillHoyt]

At microbiology level BronzeDog has stated elsewhere that the rate of mutation is independent of environmental stresses. You iirc had the same opinion; how well justified by actual data is this? We iirc did agree that at minimum preferred 'break-points' where mutation most likely occur do exist.
I'm afraid BD is both right and wrong. In higher animals, we've noted no stress response. (Except in immune systems, where the production of monoclonal antibodies in response to disease heavily depends on hyper-mutation regions in antibodies. This, however, is somatic mutation.) In microbes and plants, we have extensive evidence of both mutation suppression and mutation amplification in response to environmental stressors.

[Bronze Dog]

Okay, that's a bit more knowledge for me, Bill. I was mostly interested in deflating hammy's straw man when I type the post he mentioned. My understanding of evolution doesn't require that environmental stress increase mutation rates, but if it can (at least in some life forms), that makes the process so much easier.

[BillHoyt]

Okay, that's a bit more knowledge for me, Bill. I was mostly interested in deflating hammy's straw man when I type the post he mentioned. My understanding of evolution doesn't require that environmental stress increase mutation rates, but if it can (at least in some life forms), that makes the process so much easier.
Don't get me wrong, BD. Evolution does not require any such mechanisms. It can get along fine without them. Specific groups of organisms have such mechanisms because they get along better with them. BTW. some of what I wrote about is fairly recent material; as recent as late 2004.

[Bronze Dog]

I guess I need to do a little catching up, then.

[BillHoyt]

I guess I need to do a little catching up, then.
You, I, and everybody else have to sprint very fast in this area... ;)

[hammegk]

Is the spiralling effect, rather than 'snapping to' experimentally confirmed, or is it hypothetical?
BillHoyt in particular, would you address my question?

By hypothetical, is the demonstration of the effect verified in current microbiology, or is the implication drawn from the fossil record?

[BillHoyt]

BillHoyt in particular, would you address my question?

By hypothetical, is the demonstration of the effect verified in current microbiology, or is the implication drawn from the fossil record?
It is a mathematical fact. It is simply the expression or mapping of systems theory into the biological realm.

[hammegk]

Thanks Bill, I know it's a math fact. Rephrasing, does the math more nearly map to results in micro-bio lab, or to results gleaned from the fossil record?

[BillHoyt]

Thanks Bill, I know it's a math fact. Rephrasing, does the math more nearly map to results in micro-bio lab, or to results gleaned from the fossil record?
If you know it's a math fact, then you'd know the answer. So something is amiss.

[hammegk]

I admitted that. Do you have an actual answer? Microbiology? Fossil record? None of the above?

You tossed the idea out in the first place. Why not help others to get your point?

[BillHoyt]

I admitted that. Do you have an actual answer? Microbiology? Fossil record? None of the above?

You tossed the idea out in the first place. Why not help others to get your point?
It is a math fact. It has been verified in the lab, and has been shown in the field. You can do it yourself by breeding flowers or dogs or cows. Farmers have been doing these things for centuries.

Given that a) fossils are rare and b) fossils rarely contain DNA, what do you think the answer to this part of your question is?

More... (http://www.apsnet.org/education/AdvancedPlantPath/Topics/PopGenetics/Pages/Selection.htm)

[PatKelley]

It is a math fact. It has been verified in the lab, and has been shown in the field. You can do it yourself by breeding flowers or dogs or cows. Farmers have been doing these things for centuries.

Given that a) fossils are rare and b) fossils rarely contain DNA, what do you think the answer to this part of your question is?

More... (http://www.apsnet.org/education/AdvancedPlantPath/Topics/PopGenetics/Pages/Selection.htm)
^That is an excellent link!

[BillHoyt]

^That is an excellent link!
Thank you; glad you like it. Search on the page for "Leonard's fitness". That will take you to a section with the "spiralling" phase-plane diagrams we're discussing.