Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinism and climate change: Go on then, make a PREDICTION!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Late Eocene: Brontotheres, with Hyracodon in the foreground/artist: Carl Buell)

From “Over 65 Million Years, North American Mammal Evolution Has Tracked With Climate Change” (ScienceDaily, Dec. 27, 2011), we learn:

What the authors found is six distinct and consecutive groupings of mammal species that shared a common rise, peak, and decline in their numbers. For example, the “Paleocene fauna” had largely given way to the “early-middle Eocene fauna” by about 50 million years ago. Moreover, the authors found that these transfers of dominance correlated with temperature shifts, as reflected in data on past levels of atmospheric oxygen (determined from the isotopes in the fossilized remains of deep sea microorganisms).

To the extent that the study helps clarify scientists’ understanding of evolution amid climate changes, it does not do so to the extent that they can make specific predictions about the future, Janis said. But it seems all the clearer that climate change has repeatedly had meaningful effect over millions of years.

No wonder they say Darwinism predicts nothing. Evolution, in general, predicts nothing.

“Such perturbations, related to anthropogenic climatic change, are currently challenging the fauna of the world today, emphasizing the importance of the fossil record for our understanding of how past events affected the history of faunal diversification and extinction, and hence how future climactic changes may continue to influence life on earth,” the authors wrote in the paper.

But if such studies don’t enable us to predict anything, why are they important for understanding the outcomes of anthropogenic climate change?

Comments
also, why did you quote that link on the carbon cycle, that guy proved that we're pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than the Earth can handle.noam_ghish
December 30, 2011
December
12
Dec
30
30
2011
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT
I'm not sure if you're saying that, one, CO2 rising is a myth or two, that CO2 is rising but humans are not causing it, or three, that CO2 is rising and humans are causing it but that does not cause the temperature to rise. You ought to try to be more clear.noam_ghish
December 30, 2011
December
12
Dec
30
30
2011
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT
What I said and say is anthropic global warming via CO2 is a myth. Anthropic global raping is alive and well and needs to stop.Joe
December 30, 2011
December
12
Dec
30
30
2011
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
"If the albedo effect is reduced then the temperature will rise. And what I am saying is the albedo effect will be reduced." So you're saying that temperature will rise? Then we're in agreement. I thought you thought Global Warming is a myth.noam_ghish
December 30, 2011
December
12
Dec
30
30
2011
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Noam, If the albedo effect is reduced then the temperature will rise. And what I am saying is the albedo effect will be reduced. Also if the ice-packs melt wouldn't that cause the sea-level to rise and wipe out all those big cities?Joe
December 30, 2011
December
12
Dec
30
30
2011
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Joe, do you admit that if what you're saying is true, then temperature should not rise? if not, then why assert it as evidence to buttress your position? if yes, then why is your retrodiction falsified with the following chart? http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=899&bih=523&tbm=isch&tbnid=ZGU2Pnf9DeQpQM:&imgrefurl=http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/node3.html&docid=_VdalRab8QNBWM&imgurl=http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gnoam_ghish
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT
How can it be anything if whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce? Whatever works and lots of different alleles... If you are not following the successful organisms then your statistical phenomenon is useless as it tells you nothing about what is actually occurring biologically. What alleles will become more prevelant? The ones that do. As for mutations and random- we have been over this but here it is again- no purpose, and as you said stochastic. OTOH, Dr Spetener posits "built-in responses to environmental cues" as one mechanism for change. That is why the whole deal comes down to the origin of living organisms. If stochastic processes cannot account for that then stochastic processes are not the main driver of evolution- remember the designed to evolve stuff? Natural selection requires stochastic processes. So if the mutations are via stochastic processes then it ain't natural selection but perhaps a form of artificial selection. GAs do direct mutations as all GAs are written to solve a problem and the mutations are how it does so. It is all part of the package, part of the design. And yes mutations are part of natural selection so natural selection has mutations. Can't have NS with them.Joe
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Well if natural selection is just a statistical artifact then you don’t have anything wrt biology.
It's not a "statistical artefact". It's a statistical phenomenon. Like the half-life of radioactive material.
What works can be just about anything. And that is why non-random is a non-starter.
These sentences makes no sense to me.
BTW, yes intelligent design claims that not all mutations are random in any sense of the word. And natural selection cannot have mutations that are directed by GAs.
I don’t know what this means.
Then perhaps you could start by reading “Not By Chance”, by Dr Lee Spetner. And a bit of advice- you should at least try to understand your opponent’s position before dismissing it.
Joe, it is precisely because I want to understand your position before dismissing it that I told you I didn't understand it. And I still don't. I cannot parse your claim. I'd appreciate it if you would rephrase it. To be specific, you said: "intelligent design claims that not all mutations are random in any sense of the word". Please give a few samples of senses of the word "random" that you have in mind. I would argue (and so would most evolutionists) that mutations are non-random in many senses of the word "random". But there's no point in talking about it unless we both understand what we mean by that word. You also said: "And natural selection cannot have mutations that are directed by GAs." I can't make any sense of this sentence at all. "Natural selection" doesn't "have mutations". And GAs don't "direct" mutations". Please clarify. Thanks.Elizabeth Liddle
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
What is the basis for your assertion that there is any “lost carbon” that needs to be put “back into the (carbon) cycle”?
Fossil fuels. That is supposedly the whole stupid point- we are unleashing carbon that has been stored away- carbon that has been taken out of the carbon cycle: Global Warmer – A Primer 3 – The Carbon Cycle But anyway nice of you to retreat and regroup without acknowledging your error.Joe
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Well if natural selection is just a statistical artifact then you don't have anything wrt biology. What works can be just about anything. And that is why non-random is a non-starter. BTW, yes intelligent design claims that not all mutations are random in any sense of the word. And natural selection cannot have mutations that are directed by GAs.
I don’t know what this means.
Then perhaps you could start by reading "Not By Chance", by Dr Lee Spetner. And a bit of advice- you should at least try to understand your opponent's position before dismissing it.Joe
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
You said:
It is just that with everything else that we are doing, to focus on the one thing that we may actually be doing right, ie getting that lost carbon back into the (carbon) cycle (which we also need), is beyond lunacy.
What is the basis for your assertion that there is any "lost carbon" that needs to be put "back into the (carbon) cycle"? I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests that there is any such loss that needs to be remedied.Elizabeth Liddle
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
Natural selection is a result of three processes. Each of these processes contains a random component, the variation more so. If you have differential reproduction due to heritable random variation, then you have natural selection. “Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition
Yes.
Can’t tell what variation will occur. Can’t tell if any of the offspring will inherit even the most beneficial variation and the only way to determine differential reproduction is follow the individuals for their entire reproducing age.
No, the only way to determine differential reproduction is statistical, at population level You can't do it by following an individual.
Then there are those “lots” of different alleles can foster successful reproduction. That means natural selection is about as non-random as bird-shot coming out of a sawed-off shotgun. And that is being generous.
Well, "non-random" is a colloquial term. Natural selection is a bias to the sampling of the gene poll in each generation. Personally I think the word "random" should be dropped, as it's extremely misleading. Mutation and differential reproduction are both stochastic effects. Both, in fact, are biased in favour of what works. Disastrous mutations are rarer than near-neutral ones, and successful breeding is biased in favour of those bearing alleles that tend to promote successful breeding. By definition.
BTW, yes intelligent design claims that not all mutations are random in any sense of the word. And natural selection cannot have mutations that are directed by GAs.
I don't know what this means.Elizabeth Liddle
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Any transposon.
In what sense are they directed?Petrushka
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Any transposon. A transposon, carries within its sequencing the coding for two of the enzymes required to "cut-n-paste".Joe
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Dude, The dirt traps the heat and MELTS the ice and snow. By doing that it the albedo effect is reduced. CO2 isn't causing the temperatures to rise. Stop all the other stuff and all will be as it should.Joe
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
BTW, yes intelligent design claims that not all mutations are random in any sense of the word.
Perhaps you could provide a specific example of a mutation that was directed or non-random.Petrushka
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
I never made such an assertion. And there isn't anything in the part you quoted that has anything to do with plants. What is wrong with you?Joe
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, Natural selection is a result of three processes. Each of these processes contains a random component, the variation more so. If you have differential reproduction due to heritable random variation, then you have natural selection.
“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition
Can't tell what variation will occur. Can't tell if any of the offspring will inherit even the most beneficial variation and the only way to determine differential reproduction is follow the individuals for their entire reproducing age. Then there are those "lots" of different alleles can foster successful reproduction. That means natural selection is about as non-random as bird-shot coming out of a sawed-off shotgun. And that is being generous. BTW, yes intelligent design claims that not all mutations are random in any sense of the word. And natural selection cannot have mutations that are directed by GAs.Joe
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
The variation already existed in the population(s) of finches. No one knows if accumulations of random mutations didit.
Well, we know they were mutations (by definition). Are you suggesting that mutations aren't random?
Also if tere are lots of different alleles that can foster an advantage then you should understand that NS is not non-random because you have no idea what will be selected for at any point in time.
No, you can't predict it ahead of time. But if you observe an advantageous heritable trait (larger beak-size, for instance) and can track down the allele that is responsible, then you know that you have identified an advantageous allele.
Nor do you know what mutation will occur,
Indeed.
nor even if the advantageous trait will get passed down.
Which is why you have to work backwards from an observed advantageous phenotypic trait.
With sexual reproduction it isn’t a sure thing.
Which is why it is far more likely that a trait will become advantageous once it is fairly prevalent in the gene pool, rather than instantaneously.
So again what is this alleged non-random component?
Natural selection.Elizabeth Liddle
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
You don't have a citation for your assertion that plants need more CO2? Then why make it?Elizabeth Liddle
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
You think that plants were suffering from lack of CO2 until we started “putting it back” into the atmosphere?
Nope. Plants prosper with more CO2. And we would prosper with more plants. But no I don't have a citation for your misunderstanding/ strawman.Joe
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
The variation already existed in the population(s) of finches. No one knows if accumulations of random mutations didit. Also if tere are lots of different alleles that can foster an advantage then you should understand that NS is not non-random because you have no idea what will be selected for at any point in time. Nor do you know what mutation will occur, nor even if the advantageous trait will get passed down. With sexual reproduction it isn't a sure thing. So again what is this alleged non-random component?Joe
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
It is just that with everything else that we are doing, to focus on the one thing that we may actually be doing right, ie getting that lost carbon back into the (carbon) cycle (which we also need), is beyond lunacy.
You think that plants were suffering from lack of CO2 until we started "putting it back" into the atmosphere? Do you have a citation for that?Elizabeth Liddle
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
Whatever. It's your point, not mine.Elizabeth Liddle
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Yes the theory may say it is non-random accumulations, if it even says that at all, but the evidence doesn’t support it. What, exactly, are those alleged alleles that foster some advantage? You will know them when you see them, right?
Well, not necessarily, but what you do see is the change in the prevalence in certain apparently heritable traits, and you can sometimes track those traits down to specific alleles. Occasionally the traits will turn out not to be genetic at all but epigenetic, or a developmental response to some environmental factor. In the case of the Galapagos finch beaks, the relevant alleles have been pinpointed IIRC.
How many different alleles can foster successful reproduction?
Lots.
What about random genetic drift, which appears to be more prevelant than differential reproduction due to heritable random mutations?
Well, that's why I added the "colloquially" caveat. Drift accounts for some changes in prevalence. However, advantageousness also accounts for some - see the experiments with spots on guppies, and, indeed, the tracking of mean finch-beak size with available seed sizes.
Yeah, “beak of the finch”- unfortunetly the book and research support a wobbling stability
Yes indeed, a wobble that tracks the "wobble" of climatic variation in the Pacific, namely the frequency of El Nino events. In other words, the Grants were able to predict changes in mean finch-beak size from the changes in available seed-sizes, which in turn was predicted by whether or not the previous year was an El Nino year.
Elizabeth Liddle
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
So if you believe that soot does not keep temperature even then why did you say: "Dirt traps the heat of the sun and will melt the ice even when the ambient temp is below freezing." If we're debating global warming and you think temperature is rising, then we're in agreement.noam_ghish
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
From my PoV if humans aren't any smarter than squirrels, chipmunks and other road-kill, then that would be the Darwin Awards.Joe
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Well, as the theory says that they are non-random accumulations of random mutations, where the non-random (usuing the word “random” colloquially) element is natural selection, we should expect that in any generation, we should observe an increased prevalence of those alleles that tend to foster successful reproduction in the parental environment.
Yes the theory may say it is non-random accumulations, if it even says that at all, but the evidence doesn't support it. What, exactly, are those alleged alleles that foster some advantage? You will know them when you see them, right? How many different alleles can foster successful reproduction? What about random genetic drift, which appears to be more prevelant than differential reproduction due to heritable random mutations? Yeah, "beak of the finch"- unfortunetly the book and research support a wobbling stabilityJoe
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
You could call it that. Or you could call it poor highway management.Elizabeth Liddle
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
What should we observe if living organisms are accumulations of random mutations?
Well, as the theory says that they are non-random accumulations of random mutations, where the non-random (usuing the word "random" colloquially) element is natural selection, we should expect that in any generation, we should observe an increased prevalence of those alleles that tend to foster successful reproduction in the parental environment. As we do. I take it you have read "The Beak of the Finch"?Elizabeth Liddle
December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply