Uncommon Descent Contest Question 21 reposted What if Darwin’s theory only works 6 percent of the time?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 14, 2010

Contests, speciation}

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

(Note: There was a problem posting entry comments to the original post, so I am reposting this – I think, very interesting – question to give others a chance. I have posted a link from the previous post to this one for purposes of entry. All previous entries will be judged, so no need to repost. If you have trouble posting, contact us at oleary@sympatico.ca )

Here’s an interesting article in New Scientist by Bob Holmes on a new approach to how animals become separate species (“Accidental origins: Where species come from”, March 10, 2010):

Everywhere you look in nature, you can see evidence of natural selection at work in the adaptation of species to their environment. Surprisingly though, natural selection may have little role to play in one of the key steps of evolution – the origin of new species. Instead it would appear that speciation is merely an accident of fate.

So, at least, says Mark Pagel, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Reading, UK. If his controversial claim proves correct, then the broad canvas of life – the profusion of beetles and rodents, the dearth of primates, and so on – may have less to do with the guiding hand of natural selection and more to do with evolutionary accident-proneness.

[ … ]

“When it works, it works remarkably well,” he says. “But it only works in about 6 per cent of cases. It doesn’t seem to be a general way that groups of species fill out their niches.”

Then Darwin’s theory just barely makes it to statistical significance, conventionally given as 4 per cent.

The otherwise most informative article is marred by the constant need to claim that Darwin was not wrong – but obviously, if Pagels is right, Darwin was indeed wrong, and so are all the people fronting his cause. Natural selection acting on random mutation was, precisely, Darwin’s proposed mechanism.

No one supposes that natural selection doesn’t occur. But is it the main driver of new species, as Darwin thought, and Pagels doubts?

Pagels dances very nervously indeed around that point (presumably from fear of joining the Expelled, given that his genome research has failed to back Darwin up.

So, for a free copy of Expelled, which details what happened to a variety of people who questioned establishment Darwinism, based on its failures of evidence, read the article and provide the best answer to this question: What do you think of Pagels’s evidence? Is it critical? Is he just blowing smoke? Will he be forced to recant?

Here are the contest rules, not many or difficult. The main thing is 400 words or less. Winners receive a certificate verifying their win as well as the prize. Winners must provide me with a valid postal address, though it need not be theirs. A winner’s name is never added to a mailing list. There is no mailing list. Have fun!

Comments

I thought it might be Allen MacNeil to show us how its done. Surely his list of generators is handy. Instead it turned out to be Mark Frank. He is quite happy to forego defending the paradigm against new evidence which falsifies the origin of species by natural selection, but then again
it is not such a controversial claim.
Yeah right. Thats why the authors of the article in question set the stage as if the claim was controversal, then simply called it a "controversial claim" in the second paragraph of the text. Its also probably why they wrote:
The notion that the formation of a new species has little to do with adaptation sits uncomfortably with fundamental ideas about evolution.
But hey, you are probably right. The evolutionary biologists quoted in the article as having to adjust to the concept were probably just a theatrical set up to sell the story. Since, as you say, real evolutionary biologist had plainly already figured out that natural selection wasn't even close to being the real motivator in speciation. Thats probably why they wrote:
"Others have since grappled with the problem of how one species becomes two, and with the benefit of genetic insight, which Darwin lacked, you might think they would have cracked it. Not so. Speciation still remains one of the biggest mysteries in evolutionary biology"
But like you, I am certain that if evolutionary biologists were polled prior to the release of this data, most (if not all) of them would have guessed that natural selection played about a 6% role in speciation. Sure they would.
"I think what our paper points to - and it would be disingenuous for very many other people to say they had ever written about it - is what could be, quite frequently, the utter arbitrariness of speciation.
Yup.Upright BiPed_{March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

If you think that I, or the polling industry, or anyone, does not understand statistical significance, please feel free to explain. I would sure like to know why 6% is a good bet. If Darwinism were a political party, based on the evidence presented above, it would probably LOSE its deposit*. I see a lot of people who understand statistics have tried to explain but maybe I can also give it another go. Can I start by asking for a bit of humility on your part? Statistics is a technical subject which most journalists don't understand and don't even realise they don't understand. It is prevalent in all walks of life - not just ID - and does a lot of damage. If one journalist (you) gets to realise this as a result of this conversation then something useful will have been achieved. The term "statistical significance" has a precise technical meaning which is completely unrelated to margins of error in polls. Pilkington has explained this in #26. I guess you were referring to the fact that the margin or error in polls is often about 3 or 4% (it frequently works out at 3% if you have a random sample of about 1000). This is simply talking about the accuracy of the estimate given the size of the poll. So if the poll says party X has 35%, the real support is probably somewhere between 32 and 38%. This has nothing to do with Pagel's estimate that 6% of speciation is due to Natural Selection. There is no random sample (corresponding to the poll). It is impossible to say what the margin of error is on Pagel's estimate. It is just an utterly unrelated figure. Is 6% high or low? It is not an election where one method of speciation is the winner. It is not a bet on the truth of natural selection. In fact it is not a bet or a likelihood of any kind. It is just the proportion of speciation which is accounted for by natural selection in Pagel's opinion. For decades evolutionary biologists have been pointing out that speciation has a number of causes over and above natural selection. So it is not such a controversial claim.Mark Frank_{March 15, 2010
March
03
Mar
15
15
2010
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

It might also be worth mentioning that Michael Lynch, in his book, Origins of the Genome Architecture argues for the importance of selection being absent in order for evolution to move forward! On the grounds that Kimura, Jukes and King articulated, combined with Lynch's observations, it should be no surprise speciation happens in the absence of selection. It's arguable in some context the absence of selection would be a requirement in order to for variant forms to be prospered. Pigliucci commenting on Lynch:
One of the central theses of the book is that natural selection is not necessarily the central evolutionary mechanism…..
The developments regarding Pagel were anticipated here at UD: See: Fisher's Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection: the death sentence of Darwinism I pointed the following insights from others:
Darwinism requires that the Fundamental Theorem [of Natural Selection] does not apply most of the time. Walter ReMine Biotic Message
and
a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance Mae Wan Ho Beyond neo-Darwinism
and
Concerning this theory [Darwinian evolution], I believe that we might question (or at least note) the following: …. (10) The internal contradiction in its major theoretical cornerstone — Fisher’s fundamental theorem Stanley Salthe Analysis and critique of the concept of Natural Selection
and
many genomic features could not have emerged without a near-complete disengagement of the power of natural selection Michael Lynch opening, The Origins of Genome Architecture
Bob OH at the time said my claims were rubbish. In light of Pagels paper, all I can say is, "score another point for the UD crew!"scordova_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

I would sure like to know why 6% is a good bet.
I'll make a guess. Because the payoff is 99 to 1?Mung_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

Of interest is Pagels mention of the exponential distribution. We find such distributions in radio-active decay. Is he saying there has been an exponential decay in the number of speciation events or things related to speciation events? It may be too early to argue that inference, but that would be a compelling issue. :-) Creationists especially (and not specifically the generic ID proponent) have argued that there was a broad explosion of allelic diversificaiton which has never again been seen and that the alleles from that major event are slowly disappearing. This is possibly verifiable empirically. This is of course a speculation, and could lead to nowhere, but then again....scordova_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

pilkinton, My comments have nothing to do with your tone. They had to do with your position within the debate. The "quibbling" over statistical significance has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that natural selection isn't the force in nature prescribed to it for the past 150 years. For godsakes we are talkiong about a shift in explanatory power from 100% cause to 6% cause. There is now significant (empirical, observational, taken from the actual field) evidence that evolutionary biology IS wrong in its assessment. Not a little wrong. A LOT WRONG. From a analytical standpoint, I find it interesting that the comments are an attack on OP in repsonse. I cannot remember who posted it in a comment here once, but the comment was something to the effect...
its a little like asking Mrs Lincoln "Other than that, how was the show?"
By the way, I am a Research Director with 30 yeas experience is statistical analysis.Upright BiPed_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

If an event has a 6% chance of occurring, as the original article indicates with respect to evolution, that 6% value has absolutely nothing to do with statistical significance.
That is true if you are using the formal notion of "statistical significance" as used by statisticians. Perhaps a little charity is in order regarding more colloquial notions and usages? If you wish to argue formalities, fine. But the same standard could be applied to Darwin's writings, where math seems almost totally irrelevant, and a fact which is showing its ugly head in modern day discoveries. As David Kellog points out, Darwin appeals to religious style arguments, not hard-nosed scientific reasoning. But since you are a statistician, I'd like a little feed back about Kimura's work. Does the math square up? How about Pagels? Does the math square up as far as you can tell? Thanks in advance.scordova_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped, and others: The reason for my irritated tone is because I am a statistician. If an event has a 6% chance of occurring, as the original article indicates with respect to evolution, that 6% value has absolutely nothing to do with statistical significance. Once again, here is a link that gives a definition of statistical significance link. If that isn't adequate, then there's really no point in trying to continue.pilkington_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

To return to the question at hand, if Mark Pagel is correct, then the world is less Darwinian than one thought but also less intelligently ordered: that is, more chaotic and random than even Darwin thought. If Pagel is right, then the slight damage to Darwin is even more damaging to ID, since what is damaged is Darwin’s sense of evolutionary history fulfilling orderly and meaningful patterns — that is, Darwin at his most religious.
That is a reasonable objection, however.... Mark Pagel maybe correct that the majority of RECENT speciation events are non-Dariwnian. It says nothing of the origin of first ancetral forms. His line of research, for examples, says absolutely nothing about the Origin of Life. The Design inference could easily stand in light of Pagels discovery at the least because of the problem of OOL. Further, with more research it could be that we find coordinated broad speciation in many ancestral forms occuring about the same time. That could indicate there was a global change of tremendous magnitutde at some time from which we had numerous subsequent radiations and sudden speciations. :-) Pagels seems to agree, the biological record indicates an abrupt event.scordova_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

Upright, thanks for that good bit of humor right before bed: off topic: This Man has to be the closest thing I've seen to a living miracle yet. Derek Paravicini on 60 MINUTES - Autistic Savant http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4303465/derek_paravicini_on_60_minutes_autistic_savant/bornagain77_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

UB [23], as both Seversky and I have pointed out, the substance of the accusation doesn't hold up either. The "quibble" about statistical significance is just a way of pointing out the damage such misuse does to Denyse's rhetorical ethos.David Kellogg_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

Sal, you write, "David Kellog [sic] is quick to make accusations of dishonesty. That seems a bit premature." Actually, what I suggested was not dishonesty but a lack of credibility. This seems supported by the misuse of a term ("statistical significance") -- a misuse which is defended -- combined with a woeful misreading of the article. Denyse writes, "if Pagels [sic] is right, Darwin was indeed wrong." For the sake of argument, I'll grant that, although I think the claim is highly exaggerated. But if Pagel is right, ID is even more wrong, because Pagel's evolutionary history is even more chaotic and less directed than Darwin thought.David Kellogg_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

The 6% figure does not bode well for Darwin’s ideas. The quibbling over the phrase “statistical significance” is just that, quibbling.
It's not quibbling at all - it's almost the only defense left available. Ideologues can do one of four things: 1. They can actually lead the evidence. 2. They can mount a frontal attack on any contrary evidence and defeat it. 3. They can change the subject. 4. They can cling to the unsupported, and hope for a change. In a strategic sense (or any other) there is not a fifth option. David's first manuever was to change the subject to Oleary:
The main problem with the earlier post wasn’t the inability of readers to post comments but the writer’s misunderstanding of statistical significance, which is repeated here.
And his second manuever was to change the subject to Sal:
Sal, you love throwing around that quote. But the only problem
The same applies for pilkington, who also tries to change the subject to O'leary's comment:
You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
And then ends with a clever absolution from having the address the evidence himself:
And how exactly does margin of error (which is what you’re actually talking about) have to do with the original question.
The same again applies to hrun, who will ignore the evidence as well. He prefers to change the subject to pretending that there is no dogma in evolutionary science:
Three of the last four papers of Mark Pagel were published in Nature. One of the most prominent journals there is. It is supposedly one of the journals that actually suppresses ID and heavily promotes Darwin.
And then there is always Seversky. Unquestionably counted upon for a God of the Bible quote of some iteration. Of course, these are all the easy ones, visible from around the corner and down the block. What is more interesting are the ones who adopt the stategy of clinging to the unsupported and hoping for a change. They, of course, never say like that, so they have to say it in other ways. Perhaps Allen MacNeil can pay us a visit and show us how its done.Upright BiPed_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

I would sure like to know why 6% is a good bet.
It is fair to say that 6% in favor of Darwinism as a means of speciation is not as significant comapred to 94% in favor of Non-Darwinian mechanisms. On the other hand, a phenomenon happening 6% of the time can still be measured in a way that is "statistically significant". For example we might be able to determine with a high degree of certainty that certain rare diseases occur 6% of the time in the human population. With such a small frequency of occurence we need statistically significance to establish that some disease does indeed occur at least 6% of the time. Statistical significance can be established with sufficient sample size. 6% would be a good bet if one is the pharmaceutical company creating a cure for that 6%. What is happening in this discussion the term "statistical significance" is being used by the Darwinists here in the more conventional sense as far as establishing the veracity of a claim (such as a disease occurring in at least 6% of the population). Whereas many readers are thinking in terms of 6% being insignificant to the notion that natural selection accounts for 100% of speciation events. The 6% figure does not bode well for Darwin's ideas. The quibbling over the phrase "statistical significance" is just that, quibbling. It doesn't dimminish the fact Darwin was dead wrong. David Kellog is quick to make accusations of dishonesty. That seems a bit premature. On the otherhand we do have Darwin's own confession, which though about his childhood, might possibly apply to his adulthood:
I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement Charles Darwin
scordova_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

To return to the question at hand, if Mark Pagel is correct, then the world is less Darwinian than one thought but also less intelligently ordered: that is, more chaotic and random than even Darwin thought. If Pagel is right, then the slight damage to Darwin is even more damaging to ID, since what is damaged is Darwin's sense of evolutionary history fulfilling orderly and meaningful patterns -- that is, Darwin at his most religious.David Kellogg_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden [13], I think the perplexity is that "statistical significance" is normally associated with hypothesis testing, not opinion polling. When it is connected with opinion polling, it's directly connected with margin of error. For example, from the New York Times:
The article should give the probable margin of sampling error for a sample of the size used in the poll, and to aid comprehension it should be explained in a sentence like this: The margin of sampling error for a sample of this size is plus or minus five percentage points, so differences of less than that amount are statistically insignificant.
Perhaps you, or Denyse, can explain how opinion polling uses "statistical significance." I'd like to know why it's not about margin of error and why it's appropriate to use a measure from opinion polling here.David Kellogg_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

From the article: Then, a few years ago, he realised that reliable trees had suddenly become abundant, thanks to cheap and speedy DNA sequencing technology. "For the first time, we have a large tranche of really good phylogenetic trees to test the idea," he says. So he and his colleagues Chris Venditti and Andrew Meade rolled up their sleeves and got stuck in.
And the prediction of the effect of cheap sequencing technologies on the debate over Darwin was predicted here at UD!!!! Pagels took the cheap sequencing in a direction I didn't expect. I expect more data from the cheap sequencing technology. And I predict the outcome will continue to be bad news for Darwinism. See: Solexa: A development which may lead to measuring claims of ID proponentsscordova_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

I just want to stress that I was not being short with the person I told to "watchit" at 11 above, except insofar as I really did have a coding problem early this morning. Since fixed. So, please all - feel free to comment now. If you think that I, or the polling industry, or anyone, does not understand statistical significance, please feel free to explain. I would sure like to know why 6% is a good bet. If Darwinism were a political party, based on the evidence presented above, it would probably LOSE its deposit*. *lose its deposit? = Where I live, one must put down a sum of money to run in an election, which prevents purely frivolous candidates from (1) wasting a lot of tax-funded time on the part of election officials who must be paid from tax funds and (2) creating useless public attention when they are very unlikely to win and really couldn't serve effectively anyway. Losing a deposit means that one did not get a sufficient number of votes that the deposit was refundable. To me, Darwinism is beginning to sound like that ... O'Leary_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

O'Leary [11], I'll be happy to withdraw any objection if you can explain what you mean by statistical significance at 4%. How does that work in opinion polling, and why it is a useful metric here?David Kellogg_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Clive [12], the problem is that statistical significance is a scientific concept that is (a) connected to hypothesis testing, and (b) not pegged at 4%. To import something from opinion polling (what, I'm not sure -- an acceptable margin of error?) is just pointless. We're talking about science.David Kellogg_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Yeah Seversky, the whole issue is barely noticable. It went from 100%...to damn near 100%...to barely ever...and will now end with "so what?". HEY!, But at least you got a chance to use your booming "Hand of God" line. For that we can all rest assured you remain a conformist ideologue of the highest order; prepared to squeeze out a "so what" at the drop of a hat.Upright BiPed_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

Very interesting research but, as far as I can see, it doesn't say that natural selection doesn't happen, just that it isn't responsible for speciation to the extent that some have thought. But that's hardly a new position. I don't see any mention of the Hand of God or Intelligent Designer in there, either.Seversky_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

pilkington, Where did you get that 6% was a margin of error? It was clearly meant to mean 6% of 100%, meaning 6 times out of 100.Clive Hayden_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

David Kellog,
The main problem with the earlier post wasn’t the inability of readers to post comments but the writer’s misunderstanding of statistical significance, which is repeated here.
And the problem is...........what, again?Clive Hayden_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg at 3, watchit. The main problem was a service error, due to bad code, now worked around.* You can think what you like about my inability to see 6% as the "overwhelming evidence" proclaimed to school board officials. I wouldn't have a pet squirrel put down on that likelihood, let alone think it history's most remarkable science theory. Sorry, but as the cop said, you better come up with something better than that. *I didn't want to delete the original post, as a number of entries were made before the problem kicked in. While the entries could be moved, I prefer to see them intact, to prevent confusion. O'Leary_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

The work of Pagel was anticipated by the ground breaking work of Jukes and King in 1969. The work is celebrated as a classic in evolutionary literature: Non Darwinian Evolution Pagels work shows that Jukes and King were being too generous to Darwin.scordova_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

If we are all talking about the same Mark Pagel, then there is one peculiarity, isn't there. Three of the last four papers of Mark Pagel were published in Nature. One of the most prominent journals there is. It is supposedly one of the journals that actually suppresses ID and heavily promotes Darwin. This seem puzzling to me.hrun0815_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Mark Pagel must be wrong, Judge Jones ruled for all time that Darwin was right. LOL! PS Judge jones was the former head of some liquor control institution, it eminently qualified him to rule in favor of Darwin for all time.scordova_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

Mark Pagel must be wrong. Darwin said it 150 years ago (its right there in OOS) that NS & RM didit. Pagel must be insane to question a theory as old as that.computerist_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Sal, you love throwing around that quote. But the only problem with it is its forcefulness, its use of terms like all and its anthropomorphism. Sometimes, as here, Darwin articulates in terms that are just too religious. But the weakness of the quote is in what makes it most Christian (making natural history have a purpose). That's hardly something for you to crow about.David Kellogg_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply