Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Anything HGT does, Darwinian evolution did not do

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Talk to the Fossils.jpg  From Horizontal gene transfer: Sorry, Darwin, it’s not your evolution any more:

Richard Dawkins: For over a century, Darwinism was the “must be” explanation, the only “scientific one.” As Dawkins put it (p. 287, Blind Watchmaker, 1986):

My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.

But Darwinism is not “the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life.” Claims that were formerly merely preferred must be tested against HGT. True, some of the example findings given above may need revision or replacement. But many more will likely turn up, as research uncovers HGT in many genomes.

Anything HGT does, Darwinian evolution did not do. As more and more pieces are carved out of Darwin’s territory, just think of the impact on the vast project of “Darwinizing the culture.” More.

See also: Links to the rest of the series at Talk to the fossils: Let’s see what they say back

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
It wasn't cutting edge when it was written -- it's just a useful demonstration of an important idea.wd400
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
Is "Dawkin's Weasel" even considered serious science? Leading edge computational biology or maybe Dawkins is trolling? Weasel is the Atari Pong of computational biology?ppolish
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Intricate things form in non-living nature all the time, from galaxies to emeralds to hurricanes.
How are you defining "intricate"? And why would we expect that in a materialistic universe?Virgil Cain
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
In an imaginary environment with unlimited material resources, the fastest replicators would predominate by numbers.
The fastest are always the simplest. Complexity and speed are directly correlated.
In any case, because evolution can’t explore every possible line of descent, natural selection pushes the search into areas of higher fitness, including complex adaptation.
That is the untestable claim but no one seems to be able to model such a thing.Virgil Cain
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
I don't know that there is a debate about Dawkins' weasel (creationists have said a lot of stupid things about it, which i quite different). Anyway that chapter demonstrates that you are wrong that selection stops lineages from adaptive parts of "replicator space". Quite the opposite is true.wd400
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
Zach:
Box: NS leads to information loss and hampers chance and SSVRS.
In an imaginary environment with unlimited material resources, the fastest replicators would predominate by numbers.
So?
Zach: In any case, because evolution can’t explore every possible line of descent, (...)
Why not? Due to "natural selection" or "limited resources" — heck, what's the diff?
Zach:(...) natural selection pushes the search into areas of higher fitness,
Nonsense. NS removes information relevant to the search. Viable organisms are being killed off. Important information is lost forever.
Zach:
Box: NS means information loss and slows things down.
Only when compared to the imaginary world with unlimited resources.
Which provides us with a clear understanding of the negative effects of limited resources natural selection. - - - - WD400 #51 #54, Dawkins weasel? Are you serious? I thought that debate was over and done with.Box
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
Box: NS leads to information loss and hampers chance and SSVRS. In an imaginary environment with unlimited material resources, the fastest replicators would predominate by numbers. In any case, because evolution can't explore every possible line of descent, natural selection pushes the search into areas of higher fitness, including complex adaptation. Box: NS means information loss and slows things down. Only when compared to the imaginary world with unlimited resources.Zachriel
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Yes. That toy example seems to disprove your thesis.wd400
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
Zach: While we can imagine every possible viable pathway, in fact, natural selection is inevitable due to limitations in resources.
In a way limitations of resources is NS. But let's say you are right Zachriel: "You are right". However, what I've shown with my argument is that there is an clear tendency: NS leads to information loss and hampers chance and SSVRS. NS is indeed inevitable, but evolution needs as little of it as possible. NS means information loss and slows things down.Box
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
From Whence the WEASEL Cometh?Box
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Have you heard of Dawkins weasel....wd400
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
WD400 commenting on #44,
WD400: 1. Quite a safe assumption, I think.
Obviously, I’m talking about the assumption of a replicator with natural origins — which is quite an assumption, as you will agree.
WD400: 2. Not in finite time.
I agree. On top of that I hold that SSVRS is pure fantasy — a non-starter for several reasons. However it is the underlying concept of Darwinism.
WD400: 3. Because NS prevents lineages from wandering around the terrible places of the “replicator-space”, (…)
True.
WD400: (…) they instead takes those “narrow roads through gene land” that contain adaptations.
Here we possibly disagree. My point is that the regions, where your “narrow roads through gene land” lead, are also reached without NS. Faster even, because there is no information loss along the way. SSVRS unhampered by NS reaches goals faster.
WD400: Without NS life would be smeered out over the “replicator-space”, (…)
True.
WD400: (…) because of NS it’s instead concentrated in the adaptive regions.
Yes. However, there is a cost, because chance without NS reaches the adaptive regions faster. Which brings me to my main point: NS added nothing to the creative process.Box
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
ppolish: It’s awesome isn’t it Yes, it is. What's really awesome is that many of these phenomena can be shown as due to simple interrelationships. Box: If SSVRS proceeds undisturbed by NS, then one day all possible viable replicators will be ‘found’ – No. Only replicators that are available through descent from other viable replicators. The vast majority of conceivable, but viable replicators will never be found. Box: obviously all animals that roamed the earth included. As all organisms that exist are related by descent from viable replicators, then that is correct. Box: It’s role is often misunderstood … the fact is that NS is purely eliminative and has zero creative power. While we can imagine every possible viable pathway, in fact, natural selection is inevitable due to limitations in resources. More specifically, the sources of variation do not explore the vast majority of possible structures. Evolution only explores areas which are nearby known areas of high fitness. Natural selection 'pushes' organisms into these regions, so it is the interplay of variation and selection which leads to complex adaptations.Zachriel
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Yes, by definition NS is constraining. Strangling even. But Nature is creative in spite of NS, not because of it. HGT is pretty nifty:)ppolish
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Box made up "replicator space", it's pretty obvious that that NS constrains the parts of the space that will be explored, isn't it?wd400
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
Confined to a "replicator-space", did you just make that up WD400? The Blind Watchmaker works in a prison. Guarded by Blind Prison Guards. Oh the tangled brush we weave..,ppolish
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
1. Quite a safe assumption, I think. 2. Not in finite time. 3. Because NS prevents lineages from wandering around the terrible places of the "replicator-space", they instead takes those "narrow roads through gene land" that contain adaptations. Witouut NS life would be smeered out over the "replicator-space", because of NS it's instead concentrated in the adaptive regions.wd400
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Darwinism outline / analysis: 1. assume a replicator 2. replication takes off: the "step-by-step filling of viable-replicator-space"; henceforth SSVRS. If SSVRS proceeds undisturbed by NS, then one day all possible viable replicators will be 'found' - obviously all animals that roamed the earth included. 3. However SSVRS is hampered by a variable restrictive hostile environment with limited resources and so forth. All these negative effects are known by the generic term "natural selection" (NS). It's role is often misunderstood ... the fact is that NS is purely eliminative and has zero creative power. It's up to chance alone to produce any novelties — despite the destructive role of NS.Box
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
"Intricate things form in non-living nature all the time, from galaxies to emeralds to hurricanes." It's awesome isn't it Zachriel:)ppolish
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
ppolish: Creatively requires imagination Intricate things form in non-living nature all the time, from galaxies to emeralds to hurricanes.Zachriel
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
The Theory of Evolution certainly does posit natural mechanisms to explain the diversification of life.
What theory of evolution?
Complex adaptations require the interplay of variations with selection.
Only intelligent agencies can select.Virgil Cain
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Creative interplay and creative adaption? Creatively requires imagination, Zach. Blind Watchmaker has a good imagination;)ppolish
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Box: I’m talking about the naturalistic interpretation of Darwin’s theory of evolution. The Theory of Evolution certainly does posit natural mechanisms to explain the diversification of life. Box: So, ‘organisms’ stave off death? Why would they? Why do masses attract? Just like masses attract, organisms thrive on thermodynamic gradients. It's in their observable natures. Scientific theories are always of limited domain. Box: No, chance alone produces novel complex features Mechanisms of variation are limited in their scope. Complex adaptations require the interplay of variations with selection.Zachriel
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Zach:
Box: The point is that it’s natural origin isn’t.
The Theory of Evolution doesn’t require that assumption.
I’m talking about the naturalistic interpretation of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Why didn’t you get that?
Zach:
Box: So, ‘energy powers’ work to stave off death?
More properly, organisms thrive on thermodynamic gradients.
So, ‘organisms’ stave off death? Why would they?
Zach: By “creative”, do you mean novel, complex features? If so, then that requires the interplay of variation and selection, a.k.a. evolution.
No, chance alone produces novel complex features — despite the destructive role of NS.Box
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Box: The point is that it’s natural origin isn’t. The Theory of Evolution doesn't require that assumption. "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." — Charles Darwin Box: So, ‘energy powers’ work to stave off death? More properly, organisms thrive on thermodynamic gradients. Box: By ‘creative’ I mean any new organism or any new feature. "Feature" doesn't answer the question. By "creative", do you mean novel, complex features? If so, then that requires the interplay of variation and selection, a.k.a. evolution. Box: there is no creative interplay. The interplay results in creative adaptation.Zachriel
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
Zach: As already pointed out, the assumption is well-grounded in observation.
The point is that it’s natural origin isn’t. Which is, as I stated, simply assumed — quite an assumption.
Zach:
Box: “what is working so hard to stave off death?”
Energy powers work. Most organisms receive their energy directly or indirectly from the Sun.
So, ‘energy powers’ work to stave off death?
Zach:
Box: it’s chance that is creative and NS that is destructive.
Presumably, by creative, you mean novel complex adaptations, (…)
By ‘creative’ I mean any new organism or any new feature.
Zach: (…) in which case, it is the interplay between variation and selection that is creative.
No, there is no creative interplay. Chance offers viable organisms to NS. NS kills off most of them. NS does not add to the coming into existence of new organisms or new features. All NS does is hampering chance's impossible job. That’s not worthy of the term ‘interplay’ by any standard.Box
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
Zachriel continues to prove that it is a clueless dolt or a dishonest troll as natural selection is an eliminative process not a selection process.Virgil Cain
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Box: Indeed, and its existence is assumed by Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory — quite an assumption. As already pointed out, the assumption is well-grounded in observation. "Assume there are two masses separated by a distance, the gravitational force of attraction will be ... " Box: Not all animals work so hard to avoid coming into equilibrium with their surrounding temperature, but all animals do some comparable work. That's right! Without thermodynamics, there would be no life. The work comes from energy gradients. That's what life does! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics) Box: “what is working so hard to stave off death?” Energy powers work. Most organisms receive their energy directly or indirectly from the Sun. Box: it’s chance that is creative and NS that is destructive. Presumably, by creative, you mean novel complex adaptations, in which case, it is the interplay between variation and selection that is creative. If, by creative, you mean simply novel variations, then there are many known sources of variation.Zachriel
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
It’s called an organism. They can be observed commonly on the Earth.
And your position cannot explain their existence.Virgil Cain
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
wd400:
Mutations have causes, of course. Just like the outcomes of dice rolls and lottery draws have physical causes. But they are random with respect to fitness.
"random with respect to fitness" is useless and does not say whether or not the mutations were guided. With evolutionism all mutations are accidents, errors and/ or mistakes.Virgil Cain
August 15, 2015
August
08
Aug
15
15
2015
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply