Predictability of Evolution

_{December 5, 2006

Intelligent Design}

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

We often hear the ridiculous assertion that the theory of evolution is as well tested as the theory of gravity.

The theory of gravity can predict precisely where the planets will be a million years from now. What can the theory of evolution predict a million years into the future?

Essentially, ToE predicts nothing. It explains history after the fact which is a whole lot different than predicting something before it happens. Of what value is a theory with no predictive power? Why do we bother teaching our children a valueless theory of history that more often than not is disbelieved and causes so much strife? Just the facts, ma’am, please.

All life on earth is related through common structures such as the genetic code. That’s a fact. How the relations were established is not a matter of fact but a matter of speculation. Leave the speculation out of primary school. There are more facts surrounding biology than we possibly have time to teach in primary education. That is what we should be teaching. Just the facts, please.

Comments

First, vis-a-vis the original post, this is not all that is meant by Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â when educational policy is the issue. Dop, my free advice for the day. When you are wrong, stop arguing. You are wrong. Stop arguing. But in case you can't see how you are wrong I will explain. A teacher teaches a class that insects develop resistance to insecticides via natural selection. Nobody here objects. A teacher teaches a class that all life indisputably came from a common ancestor solely via known natural forces. Everybody here objects. The first example can be called "evolution". The second example is the Theory of Evolution or NeoDarwinism. Here is my second problem: if your definition of Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â is the working definition, what is the difference, then, between ID and TE, and why does ID really matter? A TE should accept ID axiomatically. It's the secularists crowd and the I-want-people-to-like-me-and-think-I'm-smart crowd that have a problem with it.tribune7_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

An old UD discussion related to homochirality: https://uncommondescent.com/archives/1621Patrick_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Tims Even if a species is ended there was still genetic change within that species. There are estimates ranging up to five billion species that ever lived. Approximately four billion nine hundred ninety million are extinct and left no DNA either at the start of their existence or at its end. What on earth makes you think there was genetic change that altered all of them in some significant way? The fossil record is one of abrupt appearance of species, no significant change while they live, and an inglorious extinction in the same form they began with. I suggest you read a little of Stephen Gould for a candid admission by one of the 20th century's most accomplished and recognized paleontologists in this regard. (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism. The history of most fossil species includes tow features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"
Biochemists have shown that nuclaic acids can be created in the hypositised primortal earth enviorment by natural events. No they have not. You're misinformed. They found a way to produce a partial set in concentrations too low to do anything interesting in a contrived early-earth environment now believed to have never existed, and have not even begun to satisfactorily explain homochirality. All nucleic acids used by living things are right-handed and all amino acids are left-handed. There's no chemical preference for handedness. Any natural processes that produce either monomer produce equal quantities of both right and left handed. Moreover, even when all the right monomers are concentrated by design any beginnings of complex polymers that randomly form fall apart as quickly as they form, again not leaving enough time to do anything interesting in the interim. DaveScot_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

DaveScot - It is not wrong to say the only predection the NDE makes is that there will be genetic change. Even if a species is ended there was still genetic change within that species. Nothing in NDE says that the genetic change will always be benifical. tribune7 - Why you can not test for a designer in this case is that the evidence that would link the designer to the design would be unconclusive. Think on it, how would you suppose that a designer would manipulate the design over time? How would you be able to test that? DaveScot - So the failure of the Harvard project would say that ID is true? So the failures of other scientists show that the opposition is true? That is just absurd. There is a reason for redundent testing in science. That includes failure as well as sucesses. Biochemists have shown that nuclaic acids can be created in the hypositised primortal earth enviorment by natural events. Physics can explain how we got to that point. Those endpoints that stop the continuation of complexity may only be due to time... still researching. mike1962 - Well stated. However the issue that NDE has with ID is that it has a Theological basis and not a scientific one. You pointed it out in one of your later posts.Tims_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

That organisms will continue to change is not a prediction that follows from NS + RM, but a simple reiteration of the process. I don't think this is so. If the hypothesis is simply that all organisms are related by common descent, that may or may not imply that organisms will continue to adapt to environmental and competitive pressures. You could construct a theory to underly that hypothesis in which the mechanism of historical common descent is no longer operative -- for example, it could have happened through a unique natural event, or through unique Divine intervention. The prediction that organisms will continue to change in response to environmental and competitive pressures is specific to a theory based on NS +RM. Again, take the specific example of viruses evolving resistance to drugs, which is something NS + RM would predict. If historical common descent is the result of a one-time natural event, or of divine fiat, we might expect that viruses may well not become resistant to drugs.dopderbeck_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

My observation has been that those in support of TOE generally are rather flippant in their use of the word "prediction." Reference Dopderbeck's comments beginning w/ # 3: "Anyway, evolutionary theory does make predictions about the future. It predicts, for example, that organisms will continue to change as they adapt to their environments." This is not a prediction of evolution, it is the evolutionary hypothesis itself. The hypothesis states that maybe the reason we have similar species is that they emerge from a common ancestor species. Fair enough. But the difference between a hypothesis and a theory is that the theory opens up the hypothesis and shows how it works. In the case of TOE, those inner workings are NS + RM. That organisms will continue to change is not a prediction that follows from NS + RM, but a simple reiteration of the process. All real theories make predictions. TOE makes none, and is thus not really a theory. What passes for a theory in this case is usually nothing more than the unsubstantiated claim that the hypothesis has been proved. It is a simple consequence of teaching evolution as fact--people will assume that because evolution is true that any claim against is is therefore false. So, when someone points out that TOE has no predictive power, the evolutionist simply asserts that such is not the case and then utters whatever "prediction" comes to mind, even if that prediction is a mere tautological construct that only reiterates the evolutionary hypothesis.TerryL_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Dave, please go ahead and have it with that New Scientist article. I don't have the time now to monitor it.PaV_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Tribune: Phrases ToE and Ã¢â‚¬Å“theory of evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â have specific meanings in these discussions which can be summed up as all life comes from a common ancestor solely via natural and undirected means. I have two problems with this. First, vis-a-vis the original post, this is not all that is meant by "evolution" when educational policy is the issue. In the original post, Dave said: All life on earth is related through common structures such as the genetic code. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a fact. How the relations were established is not a matter of fact but a matter of speculation. Leave the speculation out of primary school. This is just too simplistic. It is only a matter of "speculation" as to the whole meta-theories. It isn't entirely a matter of speculation when you drill down into some of the specifics. Viruses developing resistance to drugs is one of those specifics. So are the common markers in the genetic codes of different organisms. It's unproductive, IMHO, to argue for a change in educational policy based on a unique use of terminology. This kind of language game is one of the reasons, I think, that these debates have become so intractable. Here is my second problem: if your definition of "evolution" is the working definition, what is the difference, then, between ID and TE, and why does ID really matter? TE rejects the "undirected" part of this definition, as does ID. TE accepts common descent, as do many ID advocates, including apparently the author of the original post. It seems to me that, if your definition of "evolution" is the working definition, you aren't really contesting the theory of evolution, you're contesting the philosophy of materialism. If that is the contest -- and I think it is -- then it seems again unproductive to me to spend so much time, money and vitriol on a particular type of natural theology that looks for specific evidences of design in creation apart from the ordinary operation of natural laws. It seems like mostly a political move, in that a "scientific" theory has a better chance of surviving establishment clause scrutiny than a "philosophical" theory. I think that move has been a mistake, and has lead to the kind of angry rhetoric we see in threads like this one -- in which even conservative theists who reject materialism are accused of being "dishonest" and censored at the drop of a hat.dopderbeck_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t call you a liar. I never used that word and youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re putting it in my mouth to make it seem I said something more harsh. You are free to quote me where I said you were being intellectually dishonest but you are not free to translate that into more inflammatory verbage. Dave, anybody can go back and read the thread, and see exactly what you said. If you want to mince words between "dishonest" and "liar," that's fine. Now, you can delete this response too if you want, or ban me again, or whatever it is you think you need to do. This whole thread speaks extremely poorly of you and of the arguments you're trying to make, IMHO.dopderbeck_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

rrf Do you think it's unreasonable to ask how long the request for ID research proposals was on the table, who was notified of it, and why was it withdrawn? All the evidence so far provided indicates that the offer was not widely disseminated and was quickly withdrawn due to political pressure. I mean, c'mon. The only evidence it was ever offered at all is serendipitous capture of what might have been no more than a draft copy of the offer and a few words from a Templeton VP that give no insight into who the offer was made to and how long they were given to make proposals. If anyone has any evidence at all that the offer was widely disseminated and sufficient time was allowed for proposals to be constructed I welcome it. Otherwise at best it looks like the offer was made and very quickly rescinded. Why was it rescinded is the biggest question. If no one was making any proposals what is the harm in keeping the offer open? The rescinsion for any reason other than caving in to political pressure from the science establishment to NOT fund ID research is non sequitur to the evidence so far presented.DaveScot_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

bj: "Some kind of teleology seems reasonable, but all this discussion on each side with each stating conclusions beyond what the evidence will justify just proves to me how little we know, and we are supposedly educated." That's a good point. It's one of the reasons why NDE should be taught as a philosophical view in public schools, not as science.mike1962_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

All those things could have happened. Or it could have gone down exactly as reported. If you want me to disprove the conspiracy scenario you have constructed, you should know it is not possible to prove a negative.rrf_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

raevmo Nevermind the moderator note. The comment can stay and the abstract is viewable here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5802/1111
Rapid Temporal Reversal in Predator-Driven Natural Selection Jonathan B. Losos,1* Thomas W. Schoener,2 R. Brian Langerhans,1* David A. Spiller2 As the environment changes, will species be able to adapt? By conducting experiments in natural environments, biologists can study how evolutionary processes such as natural selection operate through time. We predicted that the introduction of a terrestrial predator would first select for longer-legged lizards, which are faster, but as the lizards shifted onto high twigs to avoid the predator, selection would reverse toward favoring the shorter-legged individuals better able to locomote there. Our experimental studies on 12 islets confirmed these predictions within a single generation, thus demonstrating the rapidity with which evolutionary forces can change during times of environmental flux.
This is another example of microevolution. It's nothing but Darwin's Finches revisited in lizards. ID doesn't dispute that variation in alleles don't work to better adapt any given species to changes in the environment.DaveScot_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

rrf That's a better link re Templeton. However, it has internal references to the date 11/05/2005 which is same date as the Templeton article I provided disavowing sponsering ID research. Again, this raises the valid question of who this offer was circulated to and how long were they given to submit proposals. It appears that this offer was made very briefly and then quickly withdrawn. As far as I can determine this was plucked by archive.org before it was even disseminated. This could be simply a draft that was inadvertantly left open for a web crawler to pick it up. It could also have been quickly removed because the science establishment criticized Templeton for it and they revoked it quickly for PR damage control and then publically disavowed funding of ID research. In any event the offer is no longer valid. Why not? If it was valid just a year ago why is it not still valid today? Why couldn't Templeton provide more time for proposals to be crafted and presented? I put to you the offer was quickly withdrawn, if was ever even widely disseminated, for political reasons. I welcome your further input to the contrary.DaveScot_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

dopderbeck The new account you created to try to get around moderation has been banned. If you don't calm down your regular user name is going to suffer the same fate. I didn't call you a liar. I never used that word and you're putting it in my mouth to make it seem I said something more harsh. You are free to quote me where I said you were being intellectually dishonest but you are not free to translate that into more inflammatory verbage. If you can't live with that then say goodbye as I don't intend to spend my time defending myself against things I did not say.DaveScot_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

Jehu Excellent article from Panspermia.org!DaveScot_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

MacGuy That's a pretty lame article in talkorigins. Most of the points it tries to make have been addressed here already. I can't believe they said astronomy doesn' t make predictions. Ask an astronomer what the relative positions of all the planets will be in the future, he'll make a precise prediction, and bet his reputation on it being accurate. DaveScot_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

Pav - thanks for the mouse article. I remember seeing it before, probably from you, but the import hadn't struck me at the time. I passed it along to others. It addresses an objection to front-loading in that there is highly conserved DNA with no immediate function. If you haven't written an article on this yet I think you should or I will if you don't want to.DaveScot_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

Here is some help with the Templeton link. It has expired off their own website, but archive.org is a beautiful thing: http://web.archive.org/web/20051105023131/www.templeton.org/grant_opportunities/index.asprrf_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

KL is no longer with us. A new user flying off the handle because he was asked and failed to provide a better reference for the Templeton Foundation's supposed request for ID research proposals isn't acceptable here.DaveScot_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

Check this out folks: an evolutionary prediction, a field experiment, and a confirmation of the prediction. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/314/5802/1111.pdf Moderator note: viewing this requires a subscription to Science Mag. I'm going to take it down unless fair use excerpts from it are included to support the claim made above.Raevmo_{December 6, 2006
December
12
Dec
6
06
2006
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT}

dopderbeck:
Yes, I knew that some people Ã¢â‚¬â€ YEC, OEC, and ID Ã¢â‚¬â€ try to disinguish Ã¢â‚¬Å“microÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“macroÃ¢â‚¬Â evolution. But how does that make my point dishonest? You said evolution makes no predictions at all. I cited pest and antibiotic resistance. If your response is that this isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolution,Ã¢â‚¬Â I disagree Ã¢â‚¬â€ the distinction between Ã¢â‚¬Å“microÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“macroÃ¢â‚¬Â evolution doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t seem terribly compelling to me. Not all ID people make such a hard and fast distinction on this, of course. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s difficult to understand how anyone (e.g. Mike Behe) can accept common descent and yet disavow macroevolution altogether. Of course, then we could get into another tendentious discussion about what Ã¢â‚¬Å“macroevolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â means vis-a-vis common descent.
It's not just the ID proponents who see this distinction as being supported by the evidence. You might find this recent statement by MacNeill interesting:
One of the central tenets of the "modern synthesis of evolutionary biology" as celebrated in 1959 was the idea that macroevolution and microevolution were essentially the same process. That is, macroevolution was simply microevolution extrapolated over deep evolutionary time, using the same mechanisms and with essentially the same effects. A half century of research into macroevolution has shown that this is probably not the case.
Behe would only be "disavowing" macroevolution via a Darwinistic mechanism, not via a mechanism conceived by intelligence. So what exactly is your argument again? Oh, and in general I find this discussion on "predictions" silly since it mostly comes down to imposing a particular framework on the evidence. Sure, it may make a nice little logical box you've composed but then some more evidence comes in... The logical leaps make most claims very tentative anyway. Let's just all admit that many of these claims and counter-claims are all very tentative and move along.Patrick_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

In The Deniable Darwin, David Berlinski gives us:
SWIMMING IN the soundless sea, the shark has survived for millions of years, sleek as a knife blade and twice as dull. The shark is an organism wonderfully adapted to its environment. Pause. And then the bright brittle voice of logical folly intrudes: after all, it has survived for millions of years. This exchange should be deeply embarrassing to evolutionary biologists. And yet, time and again, biologists do explain the survival of an organism by reference to its fitness and the fitness of an organism by reference to its survival, the friction between concepts kindling nothing more illuminating than the observation that some creatures have been around for a very long time. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Those individuals that have the most offspring,Ã¢â‚¬Â writes Ernst Mayr, the distinguished zoologist, Ã¢â‚¬Å“are by definition . . . the fittest ones.Ã¢â‚¬Â And in Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, Tim Berra states that Ã¢â‚¬Å“[f]itness in the Darwinian sense means reproductive fitness-leaving at least enough offspring to spread or sustain the species in nature.Ã¢â‚¬Â This is not a parody of evolutionary thinking; it is evolutionary thinking. Que sera, sera.
IOW the theory of evolution "predicts" that either things will change or they won't...Joseph_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

PaV, Related to that mouse experiment. Look at these bizarre Conserved Non-genic Sequences. CGN's. According to this article they are more highly conserved than protein coding genes and geneticists estimate humans may have as many as 65,000 of them.
For darwinism the CNGs are a conundrum Ã¢â‚¬â€ highly conserved sequences with no known function. Well, they must have a function, but what is it? And how could they have been gradually composed, and yet so tightly constrained?
http://www.panspermia.org/nongenseq.htmJehu_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

Not to spark a big debate but the big "giant" proposes an answer: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html I don't agree with their views of course but we should consider all supposed examples of predictions. What are your thoughts?macguy_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

Just as a reminder, one of the things that Darwinian theory predicts is vast numbers of intermediate forms present in the fossil record. Oops. Darwin predicted that before the Cambrian period, we would either find: 1.) nothing--because of geological processes destroying entirely the fossil record, or 2.) an almost similar amount of diversification of life forms as is seen from the Cambrian on. Oops.PaV_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

Jehu: Following up on your remarks about the significance of the experiment, I can't help but think that this experiment had no small part in evolutionists like Allen MacNeil moving away from the NDE/Modern Synthesis, and invoking/embracing "evo-devo". I remember telling my sister when this article came out that "Darwinism is dead." I told her I didn't see how the Darwinists could get around this one. Within a month, Paul Davies, a former editor of the New Scienstist magazine, was suggesting that these conserved regions were possibly a way in which alien life was signaling its presence to us. Imagine that. Well, I think that now evolutionists have had to let go of the MS--tied, as it is, to point-mutations, inversions, and such--and grasp hold of what's left: namely, "evo-devo". From my perspective, this is an interseting development. We'll all have a chance to see how it eventually plays itself out.PaV_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

The power of a good theory is not only that it will predict things that will happen, but that it will predict things that will not happen. There appears to be very little that the ToE predicts will not happen. As far as I can tell, ToE predicts a more or less smooth accumulation of minute changes. You might visualize it like a fan or a cone, spreading out from the first cell. I certainly hear the term "tree" bantered about, but never fan or cone.EndoplasmicMessenger_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

Dopderbeck, Phrases ToE and "theory of evolution" have specific meanings in these discussions which can be summed up as all life comes from a common ancestor solely via natural and undirected means. It does not refer to micro evolution.tribune7_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Physics is a real science. Perpetual motion is pseudoscience, even though they attempt to "use" real physics in constructing their ideas. Microevolution is science, limited as it may be. NDE macroevolution is crank pseudoscience, falsely extrapolated from microevolution. There is no physical evidence whatsoever that NDE macroevolution processes can lead to novel cell types, tissue types, and body plans. Yet it amazes me that those who are quick to dismiss other pseudoscience are not just as quick to dismiss NDE macroevolution pseudoscience. Entrenched ideology is a tough thing to combat.mike1962_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply