Mutations, bad not good (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Monday, June 13, 2011, 15:02 (4891 days ago)
Mutations, bad not good
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, June 24, 2011, 07:08 (4880 days ago) @ David Turell
As a resident theist, I have to say that this new information fits quite nicely with what most religious texts claim; namely that mankind has been degrading biologically since its inception, not progressing. We make a lot of assumptions about ancient mankind that, as I have often argued, are based off the assumption that they were lesser beings than we are today, i.e. we project our modern day mentality back a few thousand years and say look how dumb they were. The evidence, however, is quite to the contrary. Despite their supposed 'lack of technological sophistication' they found solutions to problems and accomplished feats that modern engineers with all of their tools and technology are hard pressed to recreate. Take the Nazca lines, Stonehenge, the Pyramids, and the Vedas( allegedly written appx. 2000 years before man was 'supposed' to have a written language and describing sciences that would not be 'discovered' for nearly 7000 years).-To me, this is just another confirmation of something I have always believed. I am sure I will catch grief for it, but the evidence keeps mounting up.
Mutations, bad not good
by DragonsHeart , Monday, July 04, 2011, 08:48 (4870 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Without even looking at ancient civilizations, all I have to do is simply look at the sheer number of disorders that are caused by genetic mutations, such as Trisomy 21(Down Syndrome), Klinefelter syndrome in males, Turner syndrome in females, and see that these mutations in no way contribute anything useful to the human species. Yes, I do know that these mutations do not occur in 100% of the population, but the fact is that they keep occurring in increasing numbers(or at least, they are being reported more often). -I was talking with someone last week, and we were discussing how humans were made perfect, and mutations occurred after the "exile from Eden." In what possible way could a mutation be beneficial to something that was supposedly perfect in the first place? -I can certainly see how certain adaptations of a species can be beneficial, but adaptations do not necessarily alter the genetic make-up of an individual or a species altogether.
Mutations, bad not good
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, July 06, 2011, 20:51 (4868 days ago) @ DragonsHeart
Without even looking at ancient civilizations, all I have to do is simply look at the sheer number of disorders that are caused by genetic mutations, such as Trisomy 21(Down Syndrome), Klinefelter syndrome in males, Turner syndrome in females, and see that these mutations in no way contribute anything useful to the human species. Yes, I do know that these mutations do not occur in 100% of the population, but the fact is that they keep occurring in increasing numbers(or at least, they are being reported more often). > > I was talking with someone last week, and we were discussing how humans were made perfect, and mutations occurred after the "exile from Eden." In what possible way could a mutation be beneficial to something that was supposedly perfect in the first place? > > I can certainly see how certain adaptations of a species can be beneficial, but adaptations do not necessarily alter the genetic make-up of an individual or a species altogether.-Welcome to the forums! -As in one of my recent posts, I made the 'mistake' of using the word 'perfect'. This is perhaps a misnomer that inadvertently put too much emphasis on my theist background. In most things, we put the burden of proof on the person making the assertion. I would challenge evolutionary theorists to show the 'benefit' of each and every small mutation, while also proving that said mutation did not preclude reproduction in the species. -I have heard Dawkins lecture and state explicitly that most times they do not know what possible benefit a given mutation could be. I find that to be an acceptable answer except for that he follows it up with the assertion that despite not being able prove how it is an improvement, it certainly is. -Even that might not be so bad except that it is the scientific equivalent of the 'God did it' argument that atheists accuse theists of.
Mutations, bad not good
by DragonsHeart , Friday, July 08, 2011, 14:58 (4866 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Thank you for the welcome, Tony.
Mutations, bad not good
DragonsHeart: I can certainly see how certain adaptations of a species can be beneficial, but adaptations do not necessarily alter the genetic make-up of an individual or a species altogether.-First of all, may I echo Tony (Balance_Maintained) in welcoming you to the forum. I've been away for a few days and am only just catching up.-The above comment of yours is crucial to the argument over evolution and, especially, speciation currently taking place on the "Kent Hovind" thread. I'd like to link it to Tony's response: "I would challenge evolutionary theorists to show the 'benefit' of each and every small mutation, while also proving that said mutation did not preclude reproduction in the species."-If you believe, as I do, that humans were relatively late arrivals on the planet, and if you acknowledge the astonishing range of similarities between us and other mammals (two eyes, a nose, a mouth, ears, reproductive and digestive systems etc.) it's not hard to accept the idea of common ancestry. But every item on the list in my parenthesis must in its time have been an innovation. I don't believe that such innovations took place in creatures that suddenly sprang to life out of nowhere. It seems more logical to me that they came about within existing creatures, thereby changing them ultimately into new species. -And so regardless of what we mean by species, this scenario entails changes, and that after all is the meaning of "mutations". We tend to link these with "genetic", which we have to if we are to account for the changes being passed on, but this is where atheists and theists part company, and I part company with both. An atheist evolutionary theorist will argue that the mutations without which evolution would have been impossible are the consequence either of chance changes within the DNA, or adaptations to a changing environment. Like yourself, I don't accept that adaptation necessarily leads to new species. Darwin's finches remained finches. I want to know how a bacterium (or whatever) "evolved" into a human, and that requires millions of innovations/mutations.-However, I see no reason at all why a theist should not accept that humans were indeed latecomers, and that there are links to earlier forms of life, and that these can be traced to mutations. But the theist will then argue that the mutations were the work of an intelligent power deliberately experimenting, or possibly even executing a plan. -The point I'm making, then, is that beneficial mutations (changes) which led from earlier forms of life to ourselves took place, no matter what your beliefs. Your only alternative as I see it is to believe in special creation, with God making each species including ourselves from scratch. -The choices then are 1) atheist: that the changes or mutations which created new organs and organisms were the chance products of a mechanism which itself was created by chance; 2) the changes were the deliberate act of a conscious intelligence; 3) the same conscious intelligence created each species from scratch. Or, of course, you can join me on the agnostic fence, and argue that the evidence for and against the creative genius of chance and for and against the existence of a conscious intelligence is not conclusive enough to justify belief (see Matt/xeno's comment under "Killing the Watchmaker").
Mutations, bad not good
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, July 11, 2011, 23:15 (4862 days ago) @ dhw
DHW, -I think there is a 4th possible path that you have not listed. I am a theist, and for that I make no apologies. However, I am not against a scientific understanding of our origins, nor do I pretend to know how the UI did it if it did do it. It is beyond our current technology and understanding. -The 4th possible path is one of humility. It is admitting that you do not know now, so that you can learn and know in the future. If you start with an idea, you will find data that supports your idea, and ignore everything else. That is human nature, and that is what we are seeing from the vast majority of scientist, regardless of their polarized spiritual beliefs. -My path is to state what we can observe, have observed, and make predictions about what we will observe in the future, and then test those observations, all done free from personal bias. You could show me the mechanism that enabled us to evolve to our current evolutionary form from start to finish, and if your science was sound and your data good, I would except it. Yet, that would still not change my opinion one way or the other regarding my theistic beliefs. Science instills wide-eyed wonder into my faith, it does not define it. -In our other thread I set out criteria(my criteria which admittedly is only based upon my own limited knowledge) for proof of speciation. This, my friend, is the crux of my whole argument. I do not particularly care, one way or the other, if we all came from a bubbling bowl of primordial soup or if we are, each and every one of us, hand crafted works of art created by the God(s). I simply wish that we not make grandiose claims that far exceed what we can prove, and that we refine, unequivocally, what our claims and meanings are. If you mean species as sexually incompatible members of a group that were formally sexually compatible, fine, but the burden is on the one defining that to prove. That is called science. Recently, in this forum, there was a thread about killer whales. In the article, they boldly stated that they were in fact view three different species of killer whales, without so much as even attempting to prove the statement by testing. The claim was made solely on the fact that they had different hunting tactics. If this were the case, then I am afraid that none of us on this forum are of the same species. You can take on the classification Homo Philosophicus Scoticus, and I will claim Homo Idioticus Whiticus Americanus. We can even have a naming contest to see how many species of humans we can classify. -That we have two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth, four limbs, and sexual reproductive organs proves nothing more than that we are efficiently designed, whether by chance or pre-planning. That we look like apes proves nothing. To me, the entire crux lies in speciation, or as they say, 'the proof is in the pudding'.- Regards, Tony
Mutations, bad not good
TONY: I think there is a 4th possible path that you have not listed. I am a theist, and for that I make no apologies. However, I am not against a scientific understanding of our origins, nor do I pretend to know how the UI did it if it did do it. It is beyond our current technology and understanding. The 4th possible path is one of humility. It is admitting that you do not know now, so that you can learn and know in the future.-This is a pretty good definition of agnosticism, which I listed as my fourth possible path.-I agree with your comments on speciation, the definition of which provides enormous problems, but your concluding comment seems to me to miss the main thrust of my response to DragonsHeart:-TONY: "That we have two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth, four limbs, and sexual reproductive organs proves nothing more than that we are efficiently designed, whether by chance or pre-planning. That we look like apes proves nothing. To me, the entire crux lies in speciation, or as they say, 'the proof is in the pudding'."-Both you and DragonsHeart argued that mutations were not beneficial. There is general consensus among scientists that humans were late arrivals on the scene. I don't know if you accept this or not. I do. The similarities which I listed suggest to me that we may well share common ancestry with earlier mammals. The similarities do not provide proof, but even if I were a theist, I would regard it as far more likely that a creator would produce variations and innovations using his existing creatures (evolution) rather than starting from scratch with each separate species. In other words, a creator would continually be making changes to existing species in order to produce new ones, and these changes can be called beneficial mutations. -Although this is speculation on my part, it is an attempt to understand how a creator MIGHT have worked. Not knowing should not, in my view, be a reason for not trying to understand, and dismissing the concept of beneficial mutations (which is so crucial to evolutionary theory and is not incompatible with theism) seems to me just as blinkered as dismissing the concept of an intelligence responsible for producing the complexities of life.
Mutations, bad not good
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, July 13, 2011, 01:29 (4861 days ago) @ dhw
Both you and DragonsHeart argued that mutations were not beneficial. There is general consensus among scientists that humans were late arrivals on the scene. I don't know if you accept this or not. I do. The similarities which I listed suggest to me that we may well share common ancestry with earlier mammals. The similarities do not provide proof, but even if I were a theist, I would regard it as far more likely that a creator would produce variations and innovations using his existing creatures (evolution) rather than starting from scratch with each separate species. In other words, a creator would continually be making changes to existing species in order to produce new ones, and these changes can be called beneficial mutations. > > Although this is speculation on my part, it is an attempt to understand how a creator MIGHT have worked. Not knowing should not, in my view, be a reason for not trying to understand, and dismissing the concept of beneficial mutations (which is so crucial to evolutionary theory and is not incompatible with theism) seems to me just as blinkered as dismissing the concept of an intelligence responsible for producing the complexities of life.-And in this you miss the entire point of my argument. I am not saying that we should not attempt to understand, but rather that we should approach such understanding with an empty mind, free from pre-conceived notions that have little if any foundation in reality and observed phenomena.
Mutations, bad not good
TONY: I am not saying that we should not attempt to understand, but rather that we should approach such understanding with an empty mind, free from pre-conceived notions that have little if any foundation in reality and observed phenomena.-This, of course, is music to the ears of an agnostic, though seemingly a little out of tune when coming from the keyboard of an avowed theist. In fairness to myself, I should therefore question your own open-mindedness since your belief in God seems unlikely not to influence your interpretation of reality and observed phenomena. However, I think that would be unproductive, and what really interests me is the directions you are willing or unwilling to take in your theistic approach to understanding. I hope you will allow me to probe a little, bearing in mind that "the truth" is beyond us, and we can only hope to gain approximations and likelihoods.-1) As I pointed out earlier, there is general scientific consensus that humans came comparatively late on the scene. Do you accept this?-2) If you do, does it seem more likely to you that your creator would have created humans from scratch, or would have used existing creatures as a basis?-3) If you accept the possibility that your creator might have used existing creatures as a basis, do you also accept the possibility that the changes he made might be labelled "beneficial mutations"?-4) If you accept that he might have organized changes ("beneficial mutations") to existing creatures, do you also accept the possibility that all forms of life may have evolved from one or a few earlier forms by means of such organized changes?-Direct answers to this somewhat unsubtle questionnaire will help me to understand your own concept of open-mindedness.
Mutations, bad not good
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, July 14, 2011, 17:01 (4860 days ago) @ dhw
1) As I pointed out earlier, there is general scientific consensus that humans came comparatively late on the scene. Do you accept this?-I accept the possibility and even grant that this is the most probable scenario, yes. However, I do not agree with the current timeline as it rejects a substantial amount of independently tested evidence because it contradicts the current ideology. (http://pleistocenecoalition.com/index.htm)-> > 2) If you do, does it seem more likely to you that your creator would have created humans from scratch, or would have used existing creatures as a basis?-I make no assumptions regarding the mechanic that was used. This is also my biggest fault with Evolution as it makes assumptions that it can not back up.-> > 3) If you accept the possibility that your creator might have used existing creatures as a basis, do you also accept the possibility that the changes he made might be labelled "beneficial mutations"? > -I do not think that we have enough knowledge of biology to speculate on how beneficial a particular mutation is, and there seems to be some disagreement on what actually constitutes a mutation. If our genetic structure was designed(whether by a UI or blind chance) in such a way as to allow it to adapt to changes in the environment in a specified way, such adaptations, in my opinion, would not constitute a mutation, but rather would be the realization of purpose. However, if such adaptive capability was not designed into our genetic structure, then any adaptation would have to be considered a mutation, a corruption of the original purpose of the gene, and therefore most likely detrimental in some form or fashion. These are not mutually exclusive, either, as I can admit the possibility that we have in our genetic structure both varieties, those that were designed to adapt, and those that were not.-> 4) If you accept that he might have organized changes ("beneficial mutations") to existing creatures, do you also accept the possibility that all forms of life may have evolved from one or a few earlier forms by means of such organized changes? > -Yes, I accept the possibility. However, that possibility, like all things in science, must be demonstrable, testable, and provide sufficient explanatory power to cover all of the observed phenomena. It must also possess a distinctly clear and unambiguous language. See my response to the thread on evolutionary tautology.-> Direct answers to this somewhat unsubtle questionnaire will help me to understand your own concept of open-mindedness.
Mutations, bad not good
I am trying to fathom out Tony's ideas in relation to evolution, and asked a series of questions.-Many thanks for your detailed response, which I greatly appreciate. When I put on my theist hat ... which is easy to do, especially in the light of David's continuous flow of information about life's biological complexity ... I inevitably begin to speculate on how a creative intelligence might have produced its designs. I'm hampered by the fact that I depend on other people for all my information, but when there's a general consensus among the experts, I accept the likelihood (not, of course, the certainty) of their being right. This is the case with man's late arrival on the scene. I am not bothered about the timeline.-The next phase is the link between earlier forms of animal and ourselves, and I asked if you thought it more likely that a creator would create us from scratch or use existing creatures as a basis. You wrote that you made "no assumptions regarding the mechanic that was used", and you felt that Evolution did make assumptions that it couldn't back up. We are treading a very fine linguistic line here. I am not interested in assumptions either, but at the same time I do not expect incontrovertible proof of ANYTHING. The most we can ever hope for is a pattern that will seem likely, and comparative likelihood was all I asked you for. -Our experience and observation tell us that all creatures descend from parents. That small adaptations take place has also been established by experience and observation, and so clearly species are subject to change. That we share many features with earlier mammals is undeniable. We need not go into the problems of defining mutations or distinguishing between adaptation and mutation, because all we are concerned with here is finding a pattern which, as you say, will "provide sufficient explanatory power to cover all the observed phenomena." One such pattern (I am still wearing my theist hat) is that God created life, and then organized it in such a way that different forms succeeded one another, either through a mechanism of change which he created, or through deliberate experimentation on his part. This pattern of earlier forms undergoing many changes fits in with the theory of evolution ("theory" in what Matt calls the "public" as opposed to the scientific sense ... a point which I shall take up with him again when he returns). -There are no assumptions here, and I am only concerned with the overall pattern, not with the details. I now have two questions for you: 1) Can you find fault with this pattern? 2) Can you suggest another that fits in equally well with the three sets of experiences and observations I have listed above?
Mutations, bad not good
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, July 15, 2011, 16:10 (4859 days ago) @ dhw
There are no assumptions here, and I am only concerned with the overall pattern, not with the details. I now have two questions for you: 1) Can you find fault with this pattern? 2) Can you suggest another that fits in equally well with the three sets of experiences and observations I have listed above?-To the general patterns, I do not now, nor have I ever had any real argument against them. That is not the fault I find in evolutionary theory, and never has been. I find that the idea makes sense on many fundamental levels. As I said, though, I think the current paradigm makes far, far too many assumptions. By the same token, I put no more stock in the current wave of fundamentalist creationism than I do in the current Theory of Evolution.
Mutations, bad not good
I have been attempting to pin Tony down on the subject of evolution, and submitted a simple theistic pattern: God created life and organized it in such a way that different forms succeeded one another.-Dhw: There are no assumptions here, and I am only concerned with the overall pattern, not with the details. I now have two questions for you: 1) Can you find fault with this pattern? 2) Can you suggest another that fits in equally well with the three sets of experiences and observations I have listed above? [These were parentage, adaptations, and similarities between humans and earlier mammals.]-TONY: To the general patterns, I do not now, nor have I ever had any real argument against them. That is not the fault I find in evolutionary theory, and never has been. I find that the idea makes sense on many fundamental levels. As I said, though, I think the current paradigm makes far, far too many assumptions. By the same token, I put no more stock in the current wave of fundamentalist creationism than I do in the current Theory of Evolution.-I feel we are moving ever closer now. It might be useful if you were to compile a simple list of these "assumptions", but I'll put in my own pennyworth first. Areas of the current theory which I find to be suspect include: 1) innovations; 2) time scales; 3) gradualism (punctuated equilibrium seems far more convincing to me); 4) the obsession with Natural Selection as a creative force, which it clearly is not. More common ground here?-In terms of the debate on design, at the risk of being a bore let me repeat yet again that the mechanism that has enabled evolution to take place seems to me to be far too complex to attribute to sheer chance. However, I cannot visualize a designer less complex than the design, and so if it is possible to believe in a spontaneously generated designer (or however one wishes to describe a UI), one might just as well believe in a spontaneously generated evolutionary mechanism. Back to the agnostic Square One.
Mutations, bad not good
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, July 16, 2011, 21:25 (4858 days ago) @ dhw
I feel we are moving ever closer now. It might be useful if you were to compile a simple list of these "assumptions", but I'll put in my own pennyworth first. Areas of the current theory which I find to be suspect include: 1) innovations; 2) time scales; 3) gradualism (punctuated equilibrium seems far more convincing to me); 4) the obsession with Natural Selection as a creative force, which it clearly is not. More common ground here?- Innovations is a major sticking point for me, particularly as we unravel greater complexity in biology. -The time scales also, particularly in light of mounting evidence against them. -I see gradualism as a grand fallacy, simply because there are far too many interdependent systems for a single major system to be half-cocked much less more than one. Punctuated equilibrium is far more likely, yet, I must question how fast these changes are actually able to happen, and if it is so quickly, why have we not witnessed more of them, particularly after the drastic changes man has made to the environment.-We certainly agree on NS. -I know this has been a topic of much conversation for me of late, but I want a clear, irrefutable definition of so-called speciation, because evolutionist seem to be contradicting themselves.-"Neanderthals were a separate species from modern humans, and became extinct (due to climate change or interaction with humans) and were replaced by H. sapiens moving into its habitat beginning around 80,000 years ago.[57] Competition from H. sapiens probably contributed to Neanderthal extinction.[58] Jared Diamond has suggested a scenario of violent conflict and displacement." - The genetic information turned up some intriguing findings, indicating, for instance, that at some point after early modern humans migrated out of Africa, they mingled and mated with Neanderthals, possibly in the Middle East or North Africa as much as 80,000 years ago.-Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987568,00.html#ixzz1SIm0OmrA- According to the earlier discussion, speciation is defined by the two species not being able to breed. Yet this article provides incontrovertible proof that Neanderthals, supposedly a different species, did breed with modern humans. So are they a different species, or not?
Mutations, bad not good
by David Turell , Sunday, July 17, 2011, 02:55 (4857 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> According to the earlier discussion, speciation is defined by the two species not being able to breed. Yet this article provides incontrovertible proof that Neanderthals, supposedly a different species, did breed with modern humans. So are they a different species, or not?-I agree with your discussion that I have deleted, but thought I'd add a comment or two about this paragraph, with which I agree.-We know certain species interbreed but the offspring are sterile. On the other hand wolves and dogs are really the same species and can breed with offspring that can breed. We have lots of wolf-dogs in Texas. Very logical; they are the same species with great modifications by human breeders. Of course Neanderthals and humans bred, most likely by rape, as DNA still present in us proves. Probably not different species, just variations on the hominid line of evolution. I'm sure Homo habilis developed from Homo erectus, or the other way around, both co-existed and interbred. I'm sure that species that modify enough to seem different, can interbreed and produce off-spring that interbreed.- Since there are no fossil series that show Darwin's tiny gradual steps, I agree that PE is the main mechanism, whatever that means. In medicine, if we didn't understand a process, we gave it a name and everyone felt better. PE is the same way, recognized but not understood.
Mutations, bad not good
Tony and I have finally agreed on the comparative likelihood of the evolutionary process, as well as on a list of problems relating to the theory (innovations, time scales, gradualism and NS as a creative force). To this list, Tony has added the problem of speciation.-TONY: According to the earlier discussion, speciation is defined by the two species not being able to breed. Yet this article provides incontrovertible proof that Neanderthals, supposedly a different species, did breed with modern humans. So are they a different species, or not?-I don't know how familiar you are with Darwin's Origin, but he has some revealing things to say on the definition of "species". Here are a few quotes from Chapter II:-"No one definition has as yet satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species."- "Certainly no clear line of demarcation has as yet been drawn between species and sub-species [...] or, again, between sub-species and well-marked varieties, or between lesser varieties and individual differences."-"If a variety were to flourish so as to exceed in numbers the parent species, it would then rank as the species, and the species as the variety; or it might come to supplant and exterminate the parent species; or both might co-exist, and both rank as an independent species." (Interesting in the context of the Neanderthals.)-This is indeed another problem that has still not been solved, though it doesn't affect the discussion on how the mechanisms of evolution actually work.-DAVID: Since there are no fossil series that show Darwin's tiny gradual steps, I agree that PE is the main mechanism, whatever that means. -I don't see PE as a mechanism at all, but simply a historical description. There are long periods of equilibrium in which species remain relatively stable, and these are punctuated by bursts of activity, with extinctions, innovations etc. These bursts may be associated with major events affecting the environment. Tony questions "how fast these changes are actually able to happen" and wonders why we have not witnessed more of them, "particularly after the drastic changes man has made to the environment". Even the Cambrian Explosion took millions of years (though different sources give wildly varying figures of how many millions). How fast is "fast"? However, if there is a sudden event like, say, a massive eruption or a collision with a meteorite, I would have thought changes would be extremely rapid. Adaptation would certainly need to be swift, but adaptation need not lead to innovations and new species. DAVID: In medicine, if we didn't understand a process, we gave it a name and everyone felt better.-A wonderful revelation! But actually it's a very serious point. By naming things, we give them authenticity, authority, and eventually perhaps even familiarity. Think of "random mutations", "dark energy", "multiverse", "God".
Mutations, bad not good
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, July 18, 2011, 01:13 (4856 days ago) @ dhw
"No one definition has as yet satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species." > > "Certainly no clear line of demarcation has as yet been drawn between species and sub-species [...] or, again, between sub-species and well-marked varieties, or between lesser varieties and individual differences." > > "If a variety were to flourish so as to exceed in numbers the parent species, it would then rank as the species, and the species as the variety; or it might come to supplant and exterminate the parent species; or both might co-exist, and both rank as an independent species." (Interesting in the context of the Neanderthals.) > > This is indeed another problem that has still not been solved, though it doesn't affect the discussion on how the mechanisms of evolution actually work. > -While I can appreciate that Darwin himself did not try to make a clear demarcation between one species and another, I think that it does affect the discussion. If we have no clear delineation between one species and the next, then how can we even begin to discuss evolution proper as a progressive movement from common ancestor to our current state of variety. At some point, there has to be a cut off between the ability to breed between one group and the next, and the point is critical, and I would say central, to the case of Evolution vs. ID. If such a mechanism does indeed exist, we should be able to isolate it. While it would not, in and of itself, definitively prove one over the other, the lack of such a mechanism would actually prove to be a strong notch in the ID supporters belt. In other words, if we can't prove that evolution, of its own accord, can provide a sustainable variety that is incapable of breeding with its predecessor, or evolutionary cousins, then how do we account for the variety of life which is unable to cross that boundary.- > DAVID: Since there are no fossil series that show Darwin's tiny gradual steps, I agree that PE is the main mechanism, whatever that means. > > I don't see PE as a mechanism at all, but simply a historical description. There are long periods of equilibrium in which species remain relatively stable, and these are punctuated by bursts of activity, with extinctions, innovations etc. These bursts may be associated with major events affecting the environment. Tony questions "how fast these changes are actually able to happen" and wonders why we have not witnessed more of them, "particularly after the drastic changes man has made to the environment". Even the Cambrian Explosion took millions of years (though different sources give wildly varying figures of how many millions). How fast is "fast"? However, if there is a sudden event like, say, a massive eruption or a collision with a meteorite, I would have thought changes would be extremely rapid. Adaptation would certainly need to be swift, but adaptation need not lead to innovations and new species. > -If a organism took a million years, a thousand years, or even a century, to adapt to an environment suddenly turned hostile, I can not conceive how the species would survive long enough to adapt. To slightly altar your question above, "How fast is fast enough?"-> DAVID: In medicine, if we didn't understand a process, we gave it a name and everyone felt better. > > A wonderful revelation! But actually it's a very serious point. By naming things, we give them authenticity, authority, and eventually perhaps even familiarity. Think of "random mutations", "dark energy", "multiverse", "God".-Agreed!!
Mutations, bad not good
TONY: While I can appreciate that Darwin himself did not try to make a clear demarcation between one species and another, I think that it does affect the discussion. If we have no clear delineation between one species and the next, then how can we even begin to discuss evolution proper as a progressive movement from common ancestor to our current state of variety. At some point, there has to be a cut off between the ability to breed between one group and the next, and the point is critical, and I would say central, to the case of Evolution vs. ID. -Before we go any further, I think we need to agree on what we mean by ID. This has become so tainted with Creationism that the words Intelligent Design have lost their meaning. (I've rightly been taken to task over references to this in the "Brief Guide", which is in need of a second revision.) If you mean that life is the product of design, I don't see speciation or evolution as a problem. If you mean that each species was created separately by God, then all species came into being originally without parenthood, and despite the vast range of similarities there is no connection between any of them. Clearly that is in conflict with evolution, and we dive into murky waters. -As I see it, the key to all this is change. If we suppose that every so often changes take place in existing forms of life and continue to take place over millions of years in those forms existing at the time, through adaptations and innovations perhaps stimulated by different environments, it seems reasonable to infer that the process will lead to a wide variety of different creatures. Some will go extinct, some remain the same, some become unrecognizably different. "Species", "sub-species", "varieties" are words we use to categorize, but as Darwin made clear, there are no firm borderlines. If we decide that the borderline is formed by the inability to interbreed, we can argue that eventually ... perhaps over thousands/millions of years ... the changes simply become too radical to allow for interbreeding. It's difficult to imagine a tabby having sex with a tiger, even though they're both felids. In the case of Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens, since apparently they did interbreed, clearly the changes were not so radical, and whether we call them species, sub-species or variations doesn't make any difference to the overall argument. If current scientific findings are to be trusted, early forms of life did not reproduce sexually, did not have wings or legs or eyes or ears or teeth. These innovations could have accumulated over millions of years in many different shapes, sizes and combinations. Atheists may say they came about through adaptations or random mutations, theists may say they came about through God's direct intervention or through a creative mechanism devised by God. And so the choice is not between evolution and design, which are perfectly compatible, but between evolution and the separate creation of species, and maybe of sub-species and varieties. I'd say that a "cut-off " point for interbreeding (ouch, that sounds painful!), when changes have become too radical, would be far less difficult to believe in than creatures which appear fully formed without any act of breeding at all. Wouldn't you?-Dhw: [...] How fast is "fast"? However, if there is a sudden event like, say, a massive eruption or a collision with a meteorite, I would have thought changes would be extremely rapid. Adaptation would certainly need to be swift, but adaptation need not lead to innovations and new species.-TONY: If a organism took a million years, a thousand years, or even a century, to adapt to an environment suddenly turned hostile, I can not conceive how the species would survive long enough to adapt. To slightly altar your question above, "How fast is fast enough?"-We agree that adaptation has to be fast enough to ensure survival, which as I said may = "extremely rapid". Our problem is to account not for species that survive but for the emergence of NEW species. Innovations, even in their most primitive form, would probably need to work immediately, but these and adaptations might be refined, varied, improved over thousands/millions of years and generations, leading to the radical changes described above.
Mutations, bad not good
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 03:45 (4854 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: While I can appreciate that Darwin himself did not try to make a clear demarcation between one species and another, I think that it does affect the discussion. If we have no clear delineation between one species and the next, then how can we even begin to discuss evolution proper as a progressive movement from common ancestor to our current state of variety. At some point, there has to be a cut off between the ability to breed between one group and the next, and the point is critical, and I would say central, to the case of Evolution vs. ID. > > Before we go any further, I think we need to agree on what we mean by ID. This has become so tainted with Creationism that the words Intelligent Design have lost their meaning. (I've rightly been taken to task over references to this in the "Brief Guide", which is in need of a second revision.) If you mean that life is the product of design, I don't see speciation or evolution as a problem. If you mean that each species was created separately by God, then all species came into being originally without parenthood, and despite the vast range of similarities there is no connection between any of them. Clearly that is in conflict with evolution, and we dive into murky waters. > > As I see it, the key to all this is change. If we suppose that every so often changes take place in existing forms of life and continue to take place over millions of years in those forms existing at the time, through adaptations and innovations perhaps stimulated by different environments, it seems reasonable to infer that the process will lead to a wide variety of different creatures. Some will go extinct, some remain the same, some become unrecognizably different. "Species", "sub-species", "varieties" are words we use to categorize, but as Darwin made clear, there are no firm borderlines. If we decide that the borderline is formed by the inability to interbreed, we can argue that eventually ... perhaps over thousands/millions of years ... the changes simply become too radical to allow for interbreeding. It's difficult to imagine a tabby having sex with a tiger, even though they're both felids. In the case of Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens, since apparently they did interbreed, clearly the changes were not so radical, and whether we call them species, sub-species or variations doesn't make any difference to the overall argument. If current scientific findings are to be trusted, early forms of life did not reproduce sexually, did not have wings or legs or eyes or ears or teeth. These innovations could have accumulated over millions of years in many different shapes, sizes and combinations. Atheists may say they came about through adaptations or random mutations, theists may say they came about through God's direct intervention or through a creative mechanism devised by God. And so the choice is not between evolution and design, which are perfectly compatible, but between evolution and the separate creation of species, and maybe of sub-species and varieties. I'd say that a "cut-off " point for interbreeding (ouch, that sounds painful!), when changes have become too radical, would be far less difficult to believe in than creatures which appear fully formed without any act of breeding at all. Wouldn't you?-I do not equate fundamentalist creationism with ID. ID, in my opinion, simply means that there was intelligence, planning, and order to the DESIGN and implementation of the 'life, the universe, and everything'.->We agree that adaptation has to be fast enough to ensure survival, which as I said may = "extremely rapid". Our problem is to account not for species that survive but for the emergence of NEW species.-Errmm.. My original post was directed at just this point. In order to account for 'the emergence of NEW species', you have to have two things: 1) a definitive answer for what exact qualifications are needed to be considered a new species, and 2) a defined transition point between old species and new species.
Mutations, bad not good
Dhw: We agree that adaptation has to be fast enough to ensure survival, which as I said may = "extremely rapid". Our problem is to account not for species that survive but for the emergence of NEW species.-TONY: Errmm.. My original post was directed at just this point. In order to account for 'the emergence of NEW species', you have to have two things: 1) a definitive answer for what exact qualifications are needed to be considered a new species, and 2) a defined transition point between old species and new species.-Errmm...I thought I'd covered that in the first section of my post. You wrote: "If we have no clear delineation between one species and the next, then how can we even begin to discuss evolution proper as a progressive movement from common ancestor to our current state of variety." Since we have now established that you reject fundamentalist creationism and the theory that God created all species separately, and you agree that there WAS such a progressive movement, the fact that we do not have (and never have had) a clear delineation between terms is not in my view a problem. We know that humans are radically different from bacteria and mice, with which we cannot interbreed. Our problem is to find out how the differences have come about. What mechanisms have enabled earlier forms of life to adapt and innovate to such a degree that we have all these radically different types of creature, which for argument's sake we can call different species? The not so different types might possibly help us to understand the process, but the question of whether, for instance, we should call Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens different species, sub-species or varieties does not seem to me a precondition before "we can even begin to discuss evolution etc." The more we discover about the physical mechanisms of evolution ... i.e. of heredity, adaptation, innovation ... the more complex they appear to be. Why must we provide clear delineations and discover missing links before we can begin to discuss these mechanisms and their implications ... especially in relation to the conflict between the theories of chance and design? Or could it be that you are still questioning whether the progressive movement actually took place? If so, what are the general patterns of evolutionary theory against which you say you have no real argument?
Mutations, bad not good
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, July 21, 2011, 00:16 (4853 days ago) @ dhw
Perhaps it is only a personal hangup, and I am not above admitting that. However, when you make the statement "Our problem is to account not for species that survive but for the emergence of NEW species" I wonder what you mean by new species, since we have no clear definition. The very phrase "emergence of new species" indicates that there is a demarcation point between old and new. -I think the distinction is important because when we talk of evolution, we are discussing two majorly different threads, adaptation and innovation. The ability for a species to grow legs instead of fins, hair or feathers instead of scales, or hollowed bones instead of heavier ones, these beg the question of not just how, in which we attempt to determine the mechanism, and why, in which we try to determine the environmental pressure which would necessitate it, but also the more fundamental question of breeding. Since, as we have both noted, a new innovation would have, by necessity, had to have come into existence in a complete enough fashion as to be not only useful but non-fatal, we must also simultaneously look at how these new innovations would have been passed on when the newly 'evolved' species tried to mate. That implies that newly evolved innovations would by necessity have to have been dominant in the genes, thus supplanting those of the perhaps non-evolved mate. Which once again brings us back to the breedability point. -If however, we take the new-darwinist view of evolution, that every change was miniscule and new innovations were formed from a series of smaller adaptations, then we must solve two issues. The first is showing that the new adaptations would have been, each and every one, of a beneficial enough nature as to be naturally selected for dominance in the gene pool. The second is proving that these changes would eventually lead to a division between the adapted lineage and the non-adapted lineage. - Now, I have spent much of my life working around animals, and there have been some interesting things I have seen. I have watched dogs of all varieties breed successfully, both of their own accord and with the interference of humans. I have seen animal lineages inbred so closely together for so many generations that, by all accounts, we should have witnessed genetic abnormalities, and yet they are perfectly healthy if not stronger than their predecessors. I have seen cats bred to have from full tails to no tails within two generations and then two generations later the offspring go from no tails to full tails. All of which is well known to science.-I have seen humans, who though bearing vastly different physical traits of all manner, have bred successfully and produced offspring which are successful breeders in their own right. For anyone that has studied the royal lineages or West Virginia, we have also seen how detrimental inbreeding can be to a bloodline, while the opposite has been witnessed in other creatures at times. -The point of all of this is to answer your question below...- > > Why must we provide clear delineations and discover missing links before we can begin to discuss these mechanisms and their implications ... especially in relation to the conflict between the theories of chance and design? Or could it be that you are still questioning whether the progressive movement actually took place? If so, what are the general patterns of evolutionary theory against which you say you have no real argument?- We must provide a clear delineation because only by such a clear delineation can such observations be objectively studied and discussed without confusion and double talk. Of the two groups of cats that were bred, were they different species, or merely different varieties? If they were different species, then how were they bred? If they were different varieties, then does that imply that if we were to impregnate, say a lynx egg with calico semen, that the egg would indeed breed a successful and sexually viable resultant offspring. If such an experiment was successful. How far could that be taken? Would it be possible to breed say, a ursine with a canine, as they are considered to be closely related? If the answer is no, even though they are supposed to have a relatively recent genetic ancestor, then we have a basis for comparison. What makes the two species incompatible? If we do not have a framework for discussion, than sweeping claims and grandiose word dances to cover gaps take the place of science. For example, how far back was it that they were saying that chimpanzees were close relatives to us because of genetic similarities. Do we say that x% of genetic differences have any meaning whatsoever if we can not isolate a breeding cut off to say whether or not such a branching was even physically possible? -Robert Heinlein, one of my favorite authors, said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Science has taken to using statistics as a matter of proof. Well, statistically, a polar bear is the safest pet. Statistically, we may be very similar to a vast number of 'species' on the planet, according to our current understanding of genetics. However, reality has a funny way of telling statistics to sod off.-Sorry if I seem to be rambling a bit. I have not been awake very long and my coffee pot is slow :P
Mutations, bad not good
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, July 21, 2011, 00:28 (4853 days ago) @ dhw
Since we have now established that you reject fundamentalist creationism and the theory that God created all species separately, and you agree that there WAS such a progressive movement, the fact that we do not have (and never have had) a clear delineation between terms is not in my view a problem.-You misrepresent me. I did not say that reject anything. I said:->I do not equate fundamentalist creationism with ID. ID, in my opinion, simply means that there was intelligence, planning, and order to the DESIGN and implementation of the 'life, the universe, and everything'.-I am searching for an answer to this just like everyone here. Fundamental creationist do take things too far with their 6 days and every single species created individually, I think. However, the 'according to their kind' statement does beg some investigation, in my opinion, even if it does not mean precisely what the fundamentalist think it does. -I do not claim to know how it was accomplished. I do not even necessarily see that there needs to be a disparity between creationism (even in a sense relatively close to the fundamentalist view) and evolution (in the sense of adaptation). I do not think that there is enough data or that we have enough understanding to categorically deny any eventuality at this point, other than that every single species, as we know them at this time, were not created individually.
Mutations, bad not good
Dhw: Since we have now established that you reject fundamentalist creationism and the theory that God created all species separately, and you agree that there WAS such a progressive movement, the fact that we do not have (and never have had) a clear delineation between terms is not in my view a problem.-TONY: You misrepresent me. I did not say that I reject anything. I said: I do not equate fundamentalist creationism with ID. ID, in my opinion, simply means that there was intelligence, planning, and order to the DESIGN and implementation of the 'life, the universe, and everything'.-In my post of 15 July at 15.02, I set out the pattern of what you call the "progressive movement" of evolution and asked if you accepted it. You replied at 16.10: "To the general patterns, I do not now, nor have I ever had any real argument against them. That is not the fault I find in evolutionary theory, and never has been." Since the fundamental basis of evolution is that it is the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier forms, I thought you therefore rejected the creationist version. Evidently this was a mistake, so please accept my apologies. The somewhat cryptic remarks in the next part of your post suggest that what in fact you are doing is setting me a puzzle, and so I'll do my best to put the various pieces together:-TONY: I am searching for an answer to this just like everyone here. Fundamental creationist do take things too far with their 6 days and every single species created individually, I think. However, the 'according to their kind' statement does beg some investigation, in my opinion, even if it does not mean precisely what the fundamentalist think it does. I do not claim to know how it was accomplished. I do not even necessarily see that there needs to be a disparity between creationism (even in a sense relatively close to the fundamentalist view) and evolution (in the sense of adaptation). I do not think that there is enough data or that we have enough understanding to categorically deny any eventuality at this point, other than that every single species, as we know them at this time, were not created individually.-It seems then that you are looking for a way to reconcile the biblical version of events with the evolutionary, and the compromise would be that some species evolved as per Darwin and Co, but some ... or possibly just one? ... was specially created by God. The one, of course, is man, because Genesis is unequivocal on this. Would I be wrong in inferring that your preoccupation with "species" centres on this particular point? The relationship between man and chimpanzee is already a problem, and that between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal man really muddies the waters. If you can cast doubt on whatever links people think they have found, this will help the case that God created our particular form of human independently of all other forms of life. The above is the only pattern I can find that joins the various dots of information you have given me, but I apologize in advance if I've got it wrong again! The extremely interesting early-morning, pre-coffee post contains very little that I would disagree with, but when I wrote about "the emergence of new species" I could just as easily have written new forms, new varieties, new organs, or indeed anything new.
Mutations, bad not good
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, July 22, 2011, 00:32 (4852 days ago) @ dhw
Dhw: Since we have now established that you reject fundamentalist creationism and the theory that God created all species separately, and you agree that there WAS such a progressive movement, the fact that we do not have (and never have had) a clear delineation between terms is not in my view a problem. > -> TONY: I am searching for an answer to this just like everyone here. Fundamental creationist do take things too far with their 6 days and every single species created individually, I think. However, the 'according to their kind' statement does beg some investigation, in my opinion, even if it does not mean precisely what the fundamentalist think it does. > I do not claim to know how it was accomplished. I do not even necessarily see that there needs to be a disparity between creationism (even in a sense relatively close to the fundamentalist view) and evolution (in the sense of adaptation). I do not think that there is enough data or that we have enough understanding to categorically deny any eventuality at this point, other than that every single species, as we know them at this time, were not created individually. > > It seems then that you are looking for a way to reconcile the biblical version of events with the evolutionary, and the compromise would be that some species evolved as per Darwin and Co, but some ... or possibly just one? ... was specially created by God. The one, of course, is man, because Genesis is unequivocal on this. Would I be wrong in inferring that your preoccupation with "species" centres on this particular point? The relationship between man and chimpanzee is already a problem, and that between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal man really muddies the waters. If you can cast doubt on whatever links people think they have found, this will help the case that God created our particular form of human independently of all other forms of life. > - I believe in a God, a UI, a being greater than humanity or anything that we know of, whatever you like to call it. I do not deny nor apologize for that. The puzzle you think you found is no real puzzle at all. Whether the UI created the rules and let the chips fall where they may, or created the pro-generators of each phyla, or created every early creature directly, I do not know, nor make any claim as to which one I believe to be the case. This is why I say there is no direct conflict between evolution and creation. The direct conflict is actually between creationism and abiogenesis, which is another topic altogether. I am vastly curious about how the process occurred, what methods were used, what order things happened in, and why. The matter of adaptation is actually of little concern to me as far as defining my views. We all know adaptation occurs, and I see it is good forward thinking on the part of a designer. (Don't you wish your car could automatically adapt to the environment and available fuel?) The problem of innovation and speciation, however, which to me are separate but related issues, are far more relevant to, not only the creationism, but also to the definition of evolution and the progress of that scientific method. If scientist KNEW that speciation could or could not occur, they would be better able to focus their research.
Mutations, bad not good
TONY: I believe in a God, a UI, a being greater than humanity or anything that we know of, whatever you like to call it. I do not deny nor apologize for that.-You've made that clear from the start, and neither I nor anyone else on this forum would expect you to apologize for it! On the contrary, your beliefs add an important and often illuminating dimension to our discussions, and I hope you don't take my probings as a criticism. For me the aim is to understand why theists and atheists think as they do, and to test their beliefs and disbeliefs against the arguments that have led to my own neutrality.-TONY: The puzzle you think you found is no real puzzle at all. Whether the UI created the rules and let the chips fall where they may, or created the pro-generators of each phyla, or created every early creature directly, I do not know, nor make any claim as to which one I believe to be the case. This is why I say there is no direct conflict between evolution and creation. I've been at great pains to argue the same point, as indeed was Darwin himself in The Origin: "I see no good reason why the views given in this book should shock the religious feelings of anyone." The direct conflict is between evolution and those creationists who argue that God created every species individually. By extension, it's also between evolutionists and those who believe that humans were specially created, as opposed to having descended directly from an ancestor shared with other primates.-TONY: The direct conflict is actually between creationism and abiogenesis, which is another topic altogether. I am vastly curious about how the process occurred, what methods were used, what order things happened in, and why. The matter of adaptation is actually of little concern to me as far as defining my views. We all know adaptation occurs, and I see it is good forward thinking on the part of a designer. (Don't you wish your car could automatically adapt to the environment and available fuel?) Once again there's no disagreement here, although the terminology can be misleading, because creationism has far too many associations with literal interpretations of the Bible. I've fallen into the same trap in the "Brief Guide" and am now very aware of the misunderstandings that can arise. Perhaps it's safer to say that the conflict is between belief either in chance or in design as the origin of the mechanisms of life and evolution.-TONY: The problem of innovation and speciation, however, which to me are separate but related issues, are far more relevant to, not only the creationism, but also to the definition of evolution and the progress of that scientific method. If scientist KNEW that speciation could or could not occur, they would be better able to focus their research.-As I've said before, we know that some creatures are radically different from others and cannot interbreed, so I don't think anyone would question that speciation has occurred, no matter how we define "species". As for a definition of evolution and its progress, my own view is that we should stick to the simplest possible formulation, e.g. "the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier forms". Once that is accepted, we can discuss all the details, like gradualism, innovation, adaptation, heredity, distinguishing between varieties and species, the role of NS etc., concerning all of which I share your curiosity. I'm also immensely grateful to you, David, Matt and everyone else who keeps us up to date with the latest findings on these subjects, including DragonsHeart, who has drawn our attention to "new insights on the brain".
Mutations, bad not good
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, July 22, 2011, 23:54 (4851 days ago) @ dhw
TONY: The problem of innovation and speciation, however, which to me are separate but related issues, are far more relevant to, not only the creationism, but also to the definition of evolution and the progress of that scientific method. If scientist KNEW that speciation could or could not occur, they would be better able to focus their research.->As I've said before, we know that some creatures are radically different from others and cannot interbreed, so I don't think anyone would question that speciation has occurred, no matter how we define "species". -Actually, and I hesitate to say it because it is really knit-picking language, one of the differences between the Fundamentalist and Evolutionist is exactly about whether speciation 'occurred'. And this is one of the points I have been trying to hammer on with my incessant rambling about speciation. Did speciation occur, or are the fundamentalist right, and speciation was instituted from the beginning. In order to answer or argue that question the definition of 'species' and the mechanism by which it occurs MUST be defined. - >As for a definition of evolution and its progress, my own view is that we should stick to the simplest possible formulation, e.g. "the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier forms". -Can we modify that to say, "the process by which living organisms change over the course of generations." I think this more neutral definition does not presume a process or mechanism that we have not defined. ->Once that is accepted, we can discuss all the details, like gradualism, innovation, adaptation, heredity, distinguishing between varieties and species, the role of NS etc., concerning all of which I share your curiosity. I'm also immensely grateful to you, David, Matt and everyone else who keeps us up to date with the latest findings on these subjects, including DragonsHeart, who has drawn our attention to "new insights on the brain".-And I am likewise grateful to all of you. I had actually considered starting a thread the other day just to say thank you, but real life pulled me away. AG.web, and all of its contributors have definitely been appreciated by me, not just for the information that's shared, but for the enlightened conversation and arguments that help me refine my own views.
Mutations, bad not good
by DragonsHeart , Saturday, July 23, 2011, 01:56 (4851 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > >Once that is accepted, we can discuss all the details, like gradualism, innovation, adaptation, heredity, distinguishing between varieties and species, the role of NS etc., concerning all of which I share your curiosity. I'm also immensely grateful to you, David, Matt and everyone else who keeps us up to date with the latest findings on these subjects, including DragonsHeart, who has drawn our attention to "new insights on the brain". > > And I am likewise grateful to all of you. I had actually considered starting a thread the other day just to say thank you, but real life pulled me away. AG.web, and all of its contributors have definitely been appreciated by me, not just for the information that's shared, but for the enlightened conversation and arguments that help me refine my own views.-I would like to thank all of you for everything. Tony introduced me to AGweb, and I have been reading many posts and topics that stretch my mental legs. I haven't had a chance to do that for ages, so to read these topics, and then to research them so that I may understand them better is truly wonderful. Thank you all so much.
Mutations, bad not good
TONY: Actually, and I hesitate to say it because it is really knit-picking language, one of the differences between the Fundamentalist and Evolutionist is exactly about whether speciation 'occurred'. [...] Did speciation occur, or are the fundamentalists right, and speciation was instituted from the beginning. In order to answer or argue that question the definition of 'species' and the mechanism by which it occurs MUST be defined.-Many of our discussions founder on language, since we are all ultimately bogged down by its inability to cope with reality. But I could respond to the above by saying that since we have living organisms as radically different as bacteria, mice and humans, speciation obviously 'occurred', only Fundamentalists say it 'occurred' at the beginning and not over the course of billions of years (and to hell with Darwin). I might also ask what you mean by 'instituted'. That too could = 'occurred', or perhaps 'was pre-programmed'. I agree with you ... it's nit-picking!-I also agree with your description of the article you referred us to as being "about as circular as they come", and I must confess it didn't help me one iota to understand what is meant by the term "species". The fact is that Darwin's comments on the problem, which I quoted in my post of 17 July at 22.43, remain just as valid today as they were 150 years ago. No-one has ever drawn a clear line of demarcation between species, subspecies and varieties, and unlike the author of the darwiniana article, I think this particular discussion does boil down to language. And in my view it's NOT necessary to establish clear borderlines, when every attempt to do so suggests that there are none. -In spite of this, lots of people have already made up their minds that a UI exists/doesn't exist, that it created or preprogrammed bacteria, mice and humans right at the start of the process, or that they evolved higgledy-piggledy over billions of years, and scientists are still able to search for and/or study the mechanisms that produced bacteria, mice and humans, and people can still decide whether it's likely that such mechanisms could assemble themselves by chance, etc....I needn't repeat all the questions humans strive to answer. Of course we cannot know the ultimate truth, but in order to continue the quest, why MUST we define a term which has been invented by humans to cover distinctions that ultimately seem impossible to cover? All the experts cite example after example to support their arguments on these subjects. Then let us focus on the process and the mechanisms illustrated by the examples. Do the answers to such fundamental questions really depend on whether we call the wolf and the coyote "species" or "subspecies" or "varieties"? -I proposed that we define evolution as "the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier forms." You suggest: "the process by which living organisms change over the course of generations", as this does not "presume a process or mechanism that we have not defined." I think both definitions do precisely this, as each entails changes in organisms, and change must automatically involve a process and mechanisms that remain the subjects of ongoing investigation. Otherwise, though, our definitions are very different. Mine looks back to a line from the respective present to the past, whereas yours is ambiguous to say the least, and could mean that no form of organism ever remains the same over the course of generations. Perhaps we should have another look at this, but what are the objections to my definition?-I'm touched by the comments you and DragonsHeart have made about the website. I regard it as a privilege to be involved in discussions like ours, and although inevitably we often find ourselves going over familiar ground, I'd like to think that each return visit yields enough new insights to make it worth everyone's while. Mercifully, we've been lucky enough to escape any permanent attention from those who prefer slanging matches to genuine exchanges of views.
Mutations, bad not good
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, July 25, 2011, 00:02 (4849 days ago) @ dhw
I might also ask what you mean by 'instituted'. That too could = 'occurred', or perhaps 'was pre-programmed'. I agree with you ... it's nit-picking! > -I believe in a UI. For me, when talking about the very beginning of things, despite what mechanics are studied, the word 'instituted' is for fitting, as regardless of the mechanics I see it a matter of design. -> Of course we cannot know the ultimate truth, but in order to continue the quest, why MUST we define a term which has been invented by humans to cover distinctions that ultimately seem impossible to cover? All the experts cite example after example to support their arguments on these subjects. Then let us focus on the process and the mechanisms illustrated by the examples. Do the answers to such fundamental questions really depend on whether we call the wolf and the coyote "species" or "subspecies" or "varieties"? > -To answer these in order..We must define the term because it puts everything else into perspective. I have read countless articles were researchers arbitrarily say a creature evolved one innovation or another, or that their common ancestor did this or that. This is pure assumption, which is bad enough. What's worse though, is the insidious effect that this has on the minds of people reading their papers. Using phrases like those constantly and doggedly impress the idea that these things are fact, when in fact, they are not. The answer to these fundamental question will not change what we call a coyote and the wolf, but it will change whether we call the canine and the ursine species cousins. -> I proposed that we define evolution as "the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier forms." You suggest: "the process by which living organisms change over the course of generations", as this does not "presume a process or mechanism that we have not defined." I think both definitions do precisely this, as each entails changes in organisms, and change must automatically involve a process and mechanisms that remain the subjects of ongoing investigation. Otherwise, though, our definitions are very different. Mine looks back to a line from the respective present to the past, whereas yours is ambiguous to say the least, and could mean that no form of organism ever remains the same over the course of generations. Perhaps we should have another look at this, but what are the objections to my definition? > -My problem is with the phrase 'from earlier forms'. It, like my own failed attempt, is impossibly vague and includes hypotheses that have not been proven, like speciation/common ancestry. -> I'm touched by the comments you and DragonsHeart have made about the website. I regard it as a privilege to be involved in discussions like ours, and although inevitably we often find ourselves going over familiar ground, I'd like to think that each return visit yields enough new insights to make it worth everyone's while. Mercifully, we've been lucky enough to escape any permanent attention from those who prefer slanging matches to genuine exchanges of views.-Good companionship and excellent intellectual discussions are always a privilege.
Mutations, bad not good
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, July 23, 2011, 01:18 (4851 days ago) @ dhw
http://darwiniana.org/mayrspecies.htm-This is a good article on speciation which highlights the points of the discussion that we have been having. This persons description, though, is about as circular as they come. (At least that's the way it seems) Two species cannot interbreed, unless they do, in which case we will still call them distinct species unless it causes a total fusion of the populations. .. .. .. There are a few points I did pick up from here, though:-1) Taxonomy is ridiculous in that, instead of seeking objectivity, the field in general is religiously attempting to uphold Darwinism despite the holes in their definitions. -2) They are unable to form a concrete, objective classification system. One of the signs of bad science is that of a lack of testable, repeatable predictions. This seems to me to be a study of bad science.- The premise says that 'species' can not interbreed. When species interbreed, such as the Wolf and Coyotes, they do not follow their own definition, instead, they make exceptions. --There are a number of evolutionary processes that make the delimitation of species taxa from each other and the determination of their rank often very difficult. The most important is so-called mosaic evolution. This means that certain characters may evolve much more readily than others. this results in a discord between the message provided by various characters. In particular, reproductive isolation and morphological difference often do not evolve in parallel with each other. This is why sibling species exist; they are reproductively isolated but morphologically indistinguishable. There is no simple recipe by which the problem posed by mosaic evolution can be solved. The decision has to be made in each case on the basis of the totality of information as well as the usefulness of the proposed classification. -What is often the basic problem is an insufficiency of needed information. This is why the decision about the status of isolated populations has to be based on inference, it is not given directly by the available data. This is as true for populations that are geographically isolated as for stages in the evolution of a single phyletic lineage. -The basic message which emerges from this account of the numerous difficulties of the species problem is that the definition of the biological species must be based on its biological significance, which is the maintenance of the integrity of well balanced, harmonious gene pools. The actual demarcation of species taxa uses morphological, geographical, ecological, behavioral, and molecular information to infer the rank of isolated populations.