Evolutionist: You’re Misrepresenting Natural Selection

_{Cornelius Hunter

December 25, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

How could the most complex designs in the universe arise all by themselves? How could biology’s myriad wonders be fueled by random events such as mutations? Read more

Comments

Well, only if by "body plan" you mean "cell type". Why not say "cell type"? "Body plan" is normally used to refer to a property of multi-cellular organisms.Elizabeth Liddle_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, The change from prokaryote to eukaryote is a new body plan. Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic CellsJoe_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

My point is that there is no difference (or rather, evolutionary theory does not posit a difference) between the processes by which a small beak evolves to become a slightly larger beak, and the processes by which a non-beak evolves to become a slight beak.
Evolutionary theory does not posit a difference - that's another way of saying that it asserts that they are the same. Again, how convenient. Meanwhile, in evolutionary terms of genetic variation and selection it does not fail, but rather does not even attempt to explain the evolutionary transition between any two beak forms, not even the finches. So it asserts that the transitions it doesn't explain are no different from the other transitions it doesn't explain. I can see why someone would have a hard time falsifying that.ScottAndrews2_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

And it’s a misunderstanding of the probabilities involved that lies at the heart of the ID error.
How exactly does one understand the probabilities correctly when no one will even attempt to specify what may or may not have happened? I don't care if Dembski got it wrong. Who got it right? Use evolution to explain something more than a variation within species. If someone ever bothers to even offer a hypothesis that incorporates the actual mechanics of evolution to explain a case of evolution then we can talk about falsification. Nothing has merited that. There is nothing to refute. It is disqualified from the competition by its refusal to show up. The success, failure, or nonexistence of competing explanations is irrelevant. Game over.ScottAndrews2_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

No dice. It asserts various aspects of beak evolution in broad, vague terms, calling each a ‘classic example of evolution.’ Evolution is (roughly) a process of variation and selection. Guess how many times this paper explains the selection of a genetic variation. It does reference specific observed selective causes with regard to those ubiquitous finches, while stating that the specific molecular variations being selected are unknown. How typical. One more research paper on evolution missing just one thing – the evolution. It’s a shell game, moving around fossils and the regulatory differences between existing bird species while tossing out wild guesses at selective causes, but only for broad phenotypic changes. The authors are even vague when they guess. What statements in this paper are substantiated so that they may be disputed? The observed differences between chicken beaks and duck bills? How does one falsify a statement such as this which is made and then never supported: The recruitment of forelimbs as wings allowed a newly found mobility resulting from flight and opened vast eco-morphological possibilities. However, this change came at a cost, because animals now needed to develop a new feeding mechanism without the use of forearms. This development exerted selection pressures on the morphology of the face; a strong, lightweight, and effective feeding apparatus had to evolve, leading to an amazing transformation of the snout into a large range of beak shapes adapted to different ecological niches. The selective pressure that led to the evolution of a new feature was the evolution of a previous new feature. How convenient. How vacuous and unsupported. How creative and how pointless. What I said stands. A vague narrative that steers completely clear of the mechanics of evolution cannot be falsified. Placing it in the same paper as a genetic comparison of extant species does not make it a serious hypothesis. If this is the theory of how beaks evolved, then there is none.
I have no idea if it's "the theory" of how beaks evolved from non-beaks. As I said, I just googled it up. I haven't read it. My point is that there is no difference (or rather, evolutionary theory does not posit a difference) between the processes by which a small beak evolves to become a slightly larger beak, and the processes by which a non-beak evolves to become a slight beak. You seem to be trying to carve nature at joints that aren't there. You accept that a beak can evolve to become larger, but you can't accept that a slightly beaky bone can evolve to become a very bony beak. But you present no good argument (that I have read) for where these apparently categorical cleavage points appear. It isn't speciation because, as I've said, speciation is simply incremental adaptation down non-interbreeding lineages. So what is it? What is the bulwark you are seeing that we claim is not there? Because unless you can produce evidence for such a bulwark, there is no bulwark to explain. Macroevolution is simply microevolution over a longer time-scale and larger environmental changes.Elizabeth Liddle_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

Well, none of that is what I would call evidence that phyla were more differentiated at the bifurcation point than any pair of speciating sub-populations, although once we go back that far, clearly the sampling of evidence will be much sparser, and we will have a much less clear picture of what the earliest members of each phyla looked like. I don't find Behe's argument that each phylum has a radically different "kernel" very convincing. Sure, prokaryotic cells and eukaryotic cells are different, but, as I said, we have at least one theory (symbiosis) that might explain that. And in any case for non-sexually reproducing organisms, "speciation" is a poor term - what we must postulate is cloning populations that clone along with their symbiotic inclusions. Which is perfectly possible (indeed even we "inherit" parental gut flora). I think you are making the mistake of assuming that because "phyla" is a term that refers not only to the earliest exemplars of each phylum but also to the entire lineage from each, that those earliest examplars were as different from each other as we, for example, are from trees, or bacteria. It's really important to be clear when we are talking longitudinally (adaptation over time) and when laterally (subdivisions of populations into separate lineages). Still, if you want to talk about gene regulatory networks, fair enough. Joe was talking about body plans. They aren't the same.Elizabeth Liddle_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

There’s a paper here I just googled up, for instance:
No dice. It asserts various aspects of beak evolution in broad, vague terms, calling each a 'classic example of evolution.' Evolution is (roughly) a process of variation and selection. Guess how many times this paper explains the selection of a genetic variation. It does reference specific observed selective causes with regard to those ubiquitous finches, while stating that the specific molecular variations being selected are unknown. How typical. One more research paper on evolution missing just one thing - the evolution. It's a shell game, moving around fossils and the regulatory differences between existing bird species while tossing out wild guesses at selective causes, but only for broad phenotypic changes. The authors are even vague when they guess. What statements in this paper are substantiated so that they may be disputed? The observed differences between chicken beaks and duck bills? How does one falsify a statement such as this which is made and then never supported:
The recruitment of forelimbs as wings allowed a newly found mobility resulting from flight and opened vast eco-morphological possibilities. However, this change came at a cost, because animals now needed to develop a new feeding mechanism without the use of forearms. This development exerted selection pressures on the morphology of the face; a strong, lightweight, and effective feeding apparatus had to evolve, leading to an amazing transformation of the snout into a large range of beak shapes adapted to different ecological niches.
The selective pressure that led to the evolution of a new feature was the evolution of a previous new feature. How convenient. How vacuous and unsupported. How creative and how pointless. What I said stands. A vague narrative that steers completely clear of the mechanics of evolution cannot be falsified. Placing it in the same paper as a genetic comparison of extant species does not make it a serious hypothesis. If this is the theory of how beaks evolved, then there is none.ScottAndrews2_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

Asking what physical laws are violated is rather pointless anyway. Flipping a penny a hundred times and getting all heads doesn’t violate any natural laws. Please don’t jump on it – my point is not a comparison of flipping coins to evolution. But that a sequence of events does not violate laws does not make it plausible, probable, or a reasonable explanation. And that’s entirely apart from the reality that in this case there are no sequences of events to be considered probable, plausible, or otherwise.
And that's a very important point. And it's a misunderstanding of the probabilities involved that lies at the heart of the ID error. Dembski simply got it wrong.Elizabeth Liddle_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Well, the tracking of finch-beak-sizes with seed-size availability in the Galapagos, for example. There’s an evolutionary explanation – what physical laws does it violate?
There are two ways I could answer that. First, I could point out that you’re equivocating. Darwin claimed that evolution was an explanation of the origin of species. If you wish to redefine it as the process of minor variations within species then we can shake hands and be done with it.
I'm not redefining it at all. But speciation, as opposed to adaptation down a single lineage, is a horizontal concept, and if a population subdivides into two non- or rarely-interbreeding subpopulations, that longitudinal process of adaptation will result in two different species.
That’s the best answer. The other is that even in this simple case, you haven’t even provided an explanation, only an observation. You still haven’t stated anything that can violate or not violate physical laws.
Sure I have, and nothing does. The physical laws involved are multiple, from the chemical and biochemical laws involved in the reproductive processes to the climatic and geophysical laws involved in environmental change, to the basic laws of physics involved in any natural hazard. All are involved; none are violated.
The example is so trivial that I’m not interested in splitting hairs over it. I don’t deny that natural selection occurs.
Good.
Am I moving the goalposts? Not intentionally. You moved them first. I asked for an evolutionary explanation and you moved the posts closer by reducing it to its most trivial, non-explanatory definition.
And explanation of what, then?
Do you see the difficulty this creates? I’m trying to be fair and reasonable. But if I set the goalposts by asking anything specific such as how beaks evolved, then I’m being unreasonable and asking too much. But if I give you leeway to set them as you wish, you place them one inch in front of the ball.
You want an evolutionary explanation for the origin of beaks? Well, I don't know much about beak evolution, but I'm sure there's a literature on the subject. There's a paper here I just googled up, for instance: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dvdy.20825/full I haven't read it, but if you want to argue that there is no evolutionary explanation for beak evolution, you'd need to point to the holes in the specific hypotheses. What I'm saying, and what any evolutionist is saying, is that all this stuff happened incrementally, whether it's a change in beak size, or a change from non-beak to a slightly beakish thing. It's all micro-evolution, including speciation, the thing about speciation being that it's micro-evolution down two separated lineages.
It makes me feel trifled with. If that’s all that can be explained with evolution then so be it. There’s nothing to discuss. Everyone will stop asserting that evolution explains anything more significant in biology, and I won’t argue.
You aren't being trifled with. What is happening is that you are dismissing as trifling the thing that is absolutely crucial. I can only think it's a scaling problem - incremental changes look vast when collapsed across millions of years and tiny when collapsed across a couple of years. But that doesn't mean that the processes are fundamentally different. Even on the galapagos there are populations where there is more within-population breeding than within-population breeding. Scale that up across the years and across larger changes and you've got speciation.Elizabeth Liddle_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

What evidence, Elizabeth? Please have a look here: http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/pdf/faq.pdf http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/ http://www.nature.com/news/enigmatic-fossils-are-neither-animals-nor-bacteria-1.9714 http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature In "The Edge of Evolution", Dr. Michael Behe argues that phyla were probably separately designed because each phylum has it own kernel that requires design. He also suggests that new orders (or families, or genera - he's not yet sure which) are characterized by unique cell types, which he thinks must have been intelligently designed, because the number of protein factors in their gene regulatory network (about ten) well exceeds the number that might fall into place naturally (three).vjtorley_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

How about I just cut to the chase? Darwin and a bunch of other folks claim that variation and selection (with a few other odds and ends thrown in) explain the origin of species. I claim that they explain only variations within species. When pressed for specifics, the only evidence available supports my position, not theirs or yours. That's not a vindication of ID by any means. It doesn't even prove that evolution cannot explain the origin of species. What is proves is that there is nothing to disprove. There is nothing to test, nothing to falsify. Save your phylogenetic trees and fossils, as no account of genetic variation combined with selection can be extracted from them. Hence they neither provide nor contribute to even a hypothetical evolutionary explanation of anything. I don't like it, but you leave me no choice. There is nothing left to debate, and not to be rude, but I'm bored to death with asking the same simple question and receiving elusive, circular, speculative, or trivial answers. So I'm bookmarking this post and declaring victory on this front. You may now commence telling me how unjustified and presumptuous I am. Of course, why wouldn't you? I'm bored with finch beaks, cichlid fishes and nylon-eating bacteria. If that's what you've got then that's what you've got. The origin of species or a species it isn't. I'm raising the flag. Anytime you want it come and get it. The game isn't over. There's no clock and no whistle. But everyone wants to talk and no one wants to kick the ball. No one even wants to defend the other goal. I'm not unreasonable. How many people have asked for a simple hypothesis, and how many times? I issued the challenge in the most reasonable, generous terms possible and the crickets are still chirping. I'm bored and I'm going home.ScottAndrews2_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Every possible sequence of flipped coins is equally likely or unlikely. Predicting a specific sequence is unlikely, but finding a sequence unlikely after the tosses is pointless.Petrushka_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

Asking what physical laws are violated is rather pointless anyway. Flipping a penny a hundred times and getting all heads doesn't violate any natural laws. Please don't jump on it - my point is not a comparison of flipping coins to evolution. But that a sequence of events does not violate laws does not make it plausible, probable, or a reasonable explanation. And that's entirely apart from the reality that in this case there are no sequences of events to be considered probable, plausible, or otherwise.ScottAndrews2_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Well, the tracking of finch-beak-sizes with seed-size availability in the Galapagos, for example. There’s an evolutionary explanation – what physical laws does it violate?
There are two ways I could answer that. First, I could point out that you're equivocating. Darwin claimed that evolution was an explanation of the origin of species. If you wish to redefine it as the process of minor variations within species then we can shake hands and be done with it. That's the best answer. The other is that even in this simple case, you haven't even provided an explanation, only an observation. You still haven't stated anything that can violate or not violate physical laws. The example is so trivial that I'm not interested in splitting hairs over it. I don't deny that natural selection occurs. Am I moving the goalposts? Not intentionally. You moved them first. I asked for an evolutionary explanation and you moved the posts closer by reducing it to its most trivial, non-explanatory definition. Do you see the difficulty this creates? I'm trying to be fair and reasonable. But if I set the goalposts by asking anything specific such as how beaks evolved, then I'm being unreasonable and asking too much. But if I give you leeway to set them as you wish, you place them one inch in front of the ball. It makes me feel trifled with. If that's all that can be explained with evolution then so be it. There's nothing to discuss. Everyone will stop asserting that evolution explains anything more significant in biology, and I won't argue.ScottAndrews2_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Wrong Elizabeth. YOU have to show that speciation can give rise to “new body plans with new body parts”.
Well, I can't do that without knowing what data you have in mind.
However you can’t even get from prokaryotic to eukaryotic- endosymbiosis only explains the power-plants, nothing else. So perhaps you could start there.
Well, there are a number of theories, but clearly it's harder to explain something so remote in the past for which there are so little data. However, symbiosis is one current hypothesis. But the origin of eukaryotes wouldn't be an example of "new body plans" or "body parts" anyway. The earliest eukaryotes would have been single celled organisms.Elizabeth Liddle_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

To keep that in context, by nature the falsification of a vague explanation with no specifics cannot itself be very specific. Several days ago I challenged anyone to pick something, anything they wish, and offer the evolutionary explanation of it. (To be reasonable, I asked for something more than colored cichlid fishes.) Frog feet, bat wings, anything. Rather than unreasonably choosing some complex phenomenon and demanding the evolutionary explanation, I reasonably asked for an evolutionary explanation of something, anything. Use the cornerstone of biology to explain something biological. After a few comments asking questions about the question the conversation went dead. Maybe it was the holidays. But they're over and no one has answered what should be the easiest question ever. (Please don't ask me another question about the question.) Here is the question. It's so simple that it requires no clarification, and I clarified it anyway. Then everyone apparently got busy. The answer is no, you haven't said anything that violates any physical laws. Technically you haven't said anything at all.ScottAndrews2_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Wrong Elizabeth. YOU have to show that speciation can give rise to "new body plans with new body parts". However you can't even get from prokaryotic to eukaryotic- endosymbiosis only explains the power-plants, nothing else. So perhaps you could start there.Joe_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

What explanation of the evolution of anything is there that could be examined to determine whether it violates any physical laws?
Well, the tracking of finch-beak-sizes with seed-size availability in the Galapagos, for example. There's an evolutionary explanation - what physical laws does it violate?Elizabeth Liddle_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

In that case please point to the "new body plans with new body parts" that you think did not arise from a speciation event.Elizabeth Liddle_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

What physical laws are violated by mainstream theories of evolution?
What explanation of the evolution of anything is there that could be examined to determine whether it violates any physical laws? Put another way, if you carefully steer clear of ever explaining anything in specific terms, your explanation will almost certainly not violate any physical laws. If you see that as a strength and not a weakness, more power to you.ScottAndrews2_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

No known speciation event has produced new body plans with new body parts.Joe_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

As ID theory has expressed many detailed and explicit arguments for the falsification of a specific mainstream theory...
Really? What physical laws are violated by mainstream theories of evolution?Petrushka_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

the evidence is that major advances (new orders, classes and phyla) in evolution did NOT occur gradually.
What evidence? And why should new orders, classes or phylae require more "major advances" than, say, the evolution of a marine or flying mammal from a land-dwelling one? Or indeed from any speciation event?Elizabeth Liddle_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Chas D: Oh, I’ve considered ‘em! A contrary position is not always an indicator of a lack of the same thought that you yourself have put in! Chas, please have some respect for my intelligence. I did not mean that you have never considered the ID arguments in your private thoughts. How can I know what you have considered or not considered? I just meant that in your post there was no argument that took into explicit consideration any of the ID arguments, and that you had expressed your disagreement without motivating it in any way. I apologize if my meaning was not clear enough. The mainstream is under no obligation to demonstrate the non-existence of ID’s barrier to undirected change. Well, I would say that "the mainstream", whatever that means, is under strong obligation to demonstrate that mainstream theories work and are credible and consistent. As ID theory has expressed many detailed and explicit arguments for the falsification of a specific mainstream theory, the obligation to answer those points remains, mainstream or not mainstream. Unless you believe that just being many ("mainstream") gives a right to be always right...gpuccio_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

The mainstream is under no obligation to demonstrate the non-existence of ID’s barrier to undirected change.
How is that any different from stating that the mainstream is under no obligation to demonstrate the vast potential for undirected change resulting from natural selection? You're claiming that natural selection is responsible for much or most of biological diversity, but that no one is obligated to provide evidence. You're right. No one is 'obligated' to support anything they claim. And no one is obligated to take it seriously. But surely you must realize that the 'cornerstone of biology' must come with evidence. That would be necessary even if no one challenged it. That's how science works - not just floating a proposed engine of change and leaving to others the burden of determining what barriers it faces. Except, that is, in the bizzaro world of evolutionary science where anything that's plausible is true, and anything that isn't plausible can be true if it has to be. It's like the 5 year old playing softball with the grown-ups. He's weak and helpless you so you suspend the rules for him. You throw him an easy pitch, swing the bat for him, and everyone stands still and cheers for as long as it takes him to run the bases.ScottAndrews2_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

Chas D:
My opinion is that NS – more properly, the combination of selection and drift – can build complex functions from raw mutation.
Great as long as you understand that is an unsupported opinion. Also ID is not anti-evolution so your "‘conventional’ evolutionary processes" is nothing but an equivocation. The mainstream does have an obligation to present positive evidence for their opinions. And mainstream should not think their opinions amount to scientific evidence.Joe_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

Chas D: "Other than that, I simply disagree that this restriction exists." OK, but that’s the whole ID theory. You simply disagree, without considering the arguments. Your choice.
Oh, I've considered 'em! A contrary position is not always an indicator of a lack of the same thought that you yourself have put in! But one would need something to put the matter beyond the purview of mere opinion-trading - a methodology that would enable the distinction to be made between 'conventional' evolutionary processes - mutation, selection and drift - and those of an interventionist character. The mainstream is under no obligation to demonstrate the non-existence of ID's barrier to undirected change.Chas D_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

b) IS can select functions even at very low levels. IOWs, IS can recognize a function even in its raw manifestation, and then optimize it. NS requires that the function level be high enough that it can give the reproductive advantage at phenotipic level.
Perhaps you can provide an example. I'm thinking that animal and plant breeding has focused more on specific "function" rather than on the kind of diversity that forestalls extinction. I'm thinking of crop failures resulting from cloned vegetables -- potatoes and bananas come to mind. Intelligent selection is very good at maximizing a specific trait, but I'm not aware of any theory of selective breeding that would maximize survival of populations over long time frames.Petrushka_{December 29, 2011
December
12
Dec
29
29
2011
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

Ok, I won't argue with that. And certainly, an exploration of how the design of living systems could have been implemented is a worthy research project.Bruce David_{December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Dr. Sewell, I am a great admirer of yours, by the way. I think your analysis of the development of life and human technology vis a vis the Second Law is a significant contribution to the whole debate. I agree with you regarding Shakespeare in particular and literature, art, and music in general. However I think that functioning systems are a different type of entity, and have significant restrictions on how it is possible to develop and modify them (again, assuming that there is a requirement that each new version must work). I further believe that this is often overlooked by both sides of the Darwinism/ID debate.Bruce David_{December 28, 2011
December
12
Dec
28
28
2011
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply