|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,507 Year: 6,764/9,624 Month: 104/238 Week: 21/83 Day: 0/4 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1663 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another IDology challenge -- complete with complaints of harsh treatments ... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
It is also quite telling where this article was published. Claremont Review of Books is the journal of the Claremont Institute a very radical right wing propaganda outfit. Ah, that would explain this bit on Gelernter's Wikipedia page:
He is known for... books on topics including... and what he sees as the destructive influence of liberal academia on American society, expressed in his book America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats). Sound like overall he's quite a piece of work.It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1663 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It is also quite telling where this article was published. Claremont Review of Books is the journal of the Claremont Institute a very radical right wing propaganda outfit. I found the moderator to be the most believable in his ignorance ... but he sure threw a lot of softballs ... Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WookieeB Member (Idle past 207 days) Posts: 190 Joined: |
Off topic, but...
RAZD writes: The problem is that we have observed new species developed by the standard evolutionary model, Where? On topic (the referred section) -
RAZD writes: And of course the problem with this argument (from incredulity after fabricating immense numbers -- a typical creationist/IDologist ploy) is that biology doesn't operate this way; First, what specifically are you saying is fabricated?Secondly, can you be more specific about what "way" biology supposedly doesnt operate by? mutations occur in a number of ways of many different length segments from whole gene copying to single inserts Ya. So? That there are myriad ways mutations can occur....is irrelevant. When evaluating the mathematics of evolution, that mutations do and will occur is inherent to the argument; it is built in and assumed. I do not think you understand the argument. ---- Then perhaps off-topic again, I have to ask about this diddy?
but also that evolution would occur rapidly when there was a void in habitat that could be occupied; selection would be diminished and more varieties would survive and evolve.
What are you talking about? What is a "void in habitat"? Regardless, Evolution doesn't care if there is a "void in habitat", it doesn't have any forward view, so it cannot occur any more rapidly to fill anything. It is unguided.And wait, so diminishing selection allows more survival and evolving? How does that work, since the selection is the very thing that supposedly provides the surviving and evolving?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1663 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Off topic, but... ... but it has bearing on the assumption of authority by the author making the claim. It speaks to the basis of his argument. Being founded on a falsehood, the argument is suspect.
RAZD writes: The problem is that we have observed new species developed by the standard evolutionary model, Where? Several places. A quick google turned up these sites:
quote: quote: You'll have to read the article to see the actual species involved, I omitted them to save space. Those who are truly interested will read the articles in their entirety, and those who aren't will ignore them.
On topic (the referred section) -
RAZD writes: And of course the problem with this argument (from incredulity after fabricating immense numbers -- a typical creationist/IDologist ploy) is that biology doesn't operate this way; First, what specifically are you saying is fabricated? The probability numbers. See the old improbable probability problem. You can't calculate probabilities without knowing all the possibilities first. If you assume this, then obviously if your end result seems impossible when it has in fact occurred the error is in the assumed numbers. I have two di -- a pair of dice -- what is the probability that I will throw/roll a seven in one try?
Secondly, can you be more specific about what "way" biology supposedly doesnt operate by? The numbers used only refer to one specific type of mutation - a single replacement mutation. Biology operates on several different types of mutations, from single replacement to full gene duplication, many involving multiple segments inserted or deleted. This vastly increases the numbers of ways DNA is modified in the real world.
Ya. So? That there are myriad ways mutations can occur....is irrelevant. When evaluating the mathematics of evolution, that mutations do and will occur is inherent to the argument; it is built in and assumed. I do not think you understand the argument. When you only include one specific mutation in your calculations and ignore all the other "myriad ways mutations" occur you are obviously not counting all the possible mutations. It is hardly irrelevant but very germane to the issue of accuracy and appropriateness of the number fabrications. Note that most of the examples of observed speciation involve massive copying of DNA segments rather than single point mutations: it is rather obviously relevant. I do not think you understand the critique of the argument.
Then perhaps off-topic again, I have to ask about this diddy?
but also that evolution would occur rapidly when there was a void in habitat that could be occupied; selection would be diminished and more varieties would survive and evolve.
What are you talking about? What is a "void in habitat"? ... A void is an empty niche in the ecology. The ecology is composed of all species in a habitat in a quasi-balance of survival and reproductive abilities, not just in predator-prey arms races but also in like species competitions. If one of the species can take advantage of a new habitat niche that is not currently occupied then it has more resources for survival and reproduction than previously, giving it an advantage. This offers more opportunity for speciation to occur as the selective pressure is lowered. This is actually observed in the case of foraminifera:
quote: Foram mass death during the extinction event, followed by an "explosion" of new species to fill the void. Similarly, the Cambrian "explosion" of new species types that first evolve protective shells occurred because the niche for species with protective shells was empty.
... Evolution doesn't care if there is a "void in habitat", it doesn't have any forward view, so it cannot occur any more rapidly to fill anything. It is unguided. Wrong. The rate of evolution is "guided" by the selection pressure: low pressure, more variations survive and reproduce; high pressure, fewer variations survive and reproduce. In an ecology in equilibrium/stassis the rates of evolution for each species will stabilize around an equilibrium value, but is a disturbed ecology some rates will increase and some will decrease (leading ultimately to extinctions).
And wait, so diminishing selection allows more survival and evolving? How does that work, since the selection is the very thing that supposedly provides the surviving and evolving? Let's start with this definition of evolution as a process:
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. Now consider these extremes:
Case 1 will provide a large expanding population with many diverse variations, case 2 will provide only one variation -- which population will evolve more, generation after generation? Which population will thus have a higher rate of evolution? Selection pressure is not static. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : formatby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
Which population will thus have a higher rate of evolution? In lower selective pressure environments populations grow larger with greater genetic diversity within the species.In higher selective pressure environments populations will grow more slowly but will speciate from the ancestor as they adapt to the selective pressures which, over time, lowers those pressures on the growing population. I question a rate of evolution. Is an increase of genetic diversity within a population a higher rate of evolution? Is the number of speciation events the higher rate? I know we love to say this but I don’t think evolution has a rate. Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
I know we love to say this but I don’t think evolution has a rate. I've pointed this out before, but nobody will believe me:
Evolution never stops. The same evolutionary processes are constantly at work, just with differing results. The processes that cause changes in the population in a new or changing environment are the same processes that keep a population from changing in an unchanging environment. So even when there's no change, that's still evolution at work.
For those with a background in engineering or as a technician, it basically acts like a negative-feedback control loop. The further you are from the set-point (eg, a specified voltage, the optimal phenotype for that environment) the harder it will drive you back to that set-point. When you are at the set-point, then the exact same mechanism keeps you at that set-point. If a power supply's voltage output remains constant, that does not mean that it's not performing voltage regulation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1663 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I've pointed this out before, but nobody will believe me: I've pointed this out before, but nobody will believe me:
Evolution never stops. The same evolutionary processes are constantly at work, just with differing results. The processes that cause changes in the population in a new or changing environment are the same processes that keep a population from changing in an unchanging environment.
For those with a background in engineering or as a technician, it basically acts like a negative-feedback control loop. The further you are from the set-point (eg, a specified voltage, the optimal phenotype for that environment) the harder it will drive you back to that set-point. When you are at the set-point, then the exact same mechanism keeps you at that set-point. So even when there's no change, that's still evolution at work.
When the ecology is stable, in equilibrium, then selection is to maintain that median position because it is successful. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
When the ecology is stable, in equilibrium, then selection is to maintain that median position because it is successful. Indeed. Selection is still selection and selection still happens. All it takes to be able to see that is some basic knowledge of evolution and thinking through how it works. The backlash I would get would mainly be from creationists who are so wrapped up in definitions and, since the word "change" appears in their definition of evolution, they think that if there's no change then evolution isn't still happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
When you are at the set-point, then the exact same mechanism keeps you at that set-point. Understanding that the set point is flexible ... I like the analogy. I'm going to steal it. Thanx.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6077 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
I like the analogy. I'm going to steal it. Thanx. You're welcome to it. I'll even give you some of the background to its development in case that gives you more to work with. I read an article from Nature or a similar science journal from around 1980 which reported on a paleontology conference centering around punctuated equilibria and similar topics. One pattern presented would be of a large population ranging over a broad environment such that it didn't change much but it lasted a long time because it had enough diversity to weather through changes in their environment; compared to that are smaller populations changing a lot to become highly specialized to their particular niches, but short-lived because they could not survive changes in their environment. A graphic that formed the imagery in my mind was one which showed that the "sudden" change in geological time was still gradual in generational. The portion of the graphic showing generational time was a series of bell curves each representing a generation and showing the center of the curve (representing the optimal organism) moving as the environment changed. That would translate into our use of the term "set-point" here and of your point that that set-point does move so the population needs to track that movement. Another contribution was made by a PBS popularization of evolution from the early to mid-80's hosted by Christopher Reeve. Towards the end was my first exposure to Evolutionstechnik, using evolutionary processes in engineering (eg, genetic algorithms, it was a few years later that I first heard of GAs). The mind-bender for me was when he presented a model of a 3-D "evolutionary landscape" in which the environmental optimum was the top of a hill (a local optimum) and he described evolutionary change as being faster when the population is farther away from that optimal point and would slow down as it got closer. That idea took me by surprise, so I worked through some Gedankenexperimenten (I'm kind of good at visualizing things). This is what I ended up with (which would work better with good visuals, so my apologies):
In my mind, I saw that population work its way to that optimal point and then center around it. And over subsequent generations as the population's curve might try to spread out, selection would eliminate the more extremely different individuals and thus keep the population centered at that point. A further application would be to start with an optimally adapted population and then start moving the optimal point and observe the population's response to that. Again, we should observe the population shifting its own center to track its optimal point. I think that you could set up an experiment involving two optimal points, one that the population starts off tracking and the other a near-by one. I would visualize part of the parent population splitting off and starting to track the new optimal point. I've also thought of adapting this visual model to a simulation program for study. Let us know what you're able to do with this, if anything. Share and enjoy!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1663 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I had a reply ready yesterday, but it was a little muddled and I wasn't happy with it, and while I was fiddling with it I lost it. I hope this is better ... I incorporated some of DWise1's comments.
In higher selective pressure environments populations will grow more slowly but will speciate from the ancestor as they adapt to the selective pressures which, over time, lowers those pressures on the growing population. This would be anagenesis as the high selective pressure creates a narrow opportunity for divergence. We also know from some experiments that high stress can lead to more mutations as the immune system is suppressed and control systems over cell structure weakens. So high selective pressure, increase in mutation rate, narrow selection of mutations for survival/reproductive fitness benefits, population changes -- bell curve narrows and moves to fit the ecology.
In lower selective pressure environments populations grow larger with greater genetic diversity within the species. and spreads into more marginal environments as population growth increases competition for resources (selective pressure increases). The genetic diversity provides possible benefits to access those marginal habitats and this provides opportunities for cladogenesis, the division of the population into daughter species. Low pressure, less stress, moderate mutation rate but more open selection, the bell curve spreads and covers more diverse ecologies. The amount/number of mutations selected is higher than in the high selective pressure scenario because there is more opportunity for survival and reproduction.
I question a rate of evolution. As noted in Message 19:
quote: An increased rate of speciation would be an increased rate of evolution in my opinion.
Is an increase of genetic diversity within a population a higher rate of evolution? Is the number of speciation events the higher rate? One of the problems I've had with the genetic molecular clocks is the assumption of a constant rate of mutation and a constant rate of evolution. As yet I've seen no evidence of the and have no reason to accept this assumption. If we use this definition of evolution as a process:
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. Then the rate of evolution would be the rate at which these changes take place, the rate at which mutations are selected/incorporated into the population gene pool. This would be greater under low selection pressure than under high selection pressure. In stasis conditions evolution still occurs but selection is to maintain the population, bell curve, in the current fitness level. The rate of evolution would be low -- neutral and minor variations would not be deselected -- and little visible change would be observed.
I know we love to say this but I don’t think evolution has a rate. Respectfully disagree. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1663 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... If we use this definition of evolution as a process:
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. Then the rate of evolution would be the rate at which these changes take place, the rate at which mutations are selected/incorporated into the population gene pool. ... So I've done a little more research on this:
quote: Interesting discussion of Evolvability, effects of koinophilia and issues of the Fossil record (including Punc-Eek) ... but they give no calculation of this variable. Disappointing. Should have a link to:
quote: Phillip D. Gingerich prefers to use haldanes:
quote: So we have two measurements of the rate of evolution in the literature. Both based on observed morphological changes. Basing one on genetics could be more difficult as it is hard to tell when mutations get expressed in the phenotype. There is the rate of mutation, which I also think is variable, but then we need to know when mutations are expressed in a way that affects selection (survival, reproduction). Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
This is where I have a problem.
In both of these treatments evolution is viewed like it is goal oriented.
Initial and final values of a trait over some mm years How long to double the size of a mouse Whatever numbers, in darwins or in haldanes, one achieves are arbitrary and meaningless. It took X million years for this A. whosits to grow a widget from # cm ## cm.And it took Y million years for the B. thingies to double the size its whatever. A. whosits took 62 darwins from this phenotype to that.
B. thingies took 65 darwins from this phenotype to that. Does this mean *evolution* was faster for the whosits than the thingies and does it really matter? All it means is that more time elapsed from this arbitrarily chosen version of the whosits to that one, than it did for the two arbitrarily chosen versions of the thingies. Neither of these gives a rate to evolution but just a length of time to go from this version to that version. And this is not just semantics since it was not evolution that changed but the inputs to its processes that changed.
We also know from some experiments that high stress can lead to more mutations as the immune system is suppressed and control systems over cell structure weakens. This changes the inputs to the processes but does not change or speed up those processes. Stress Response Mutations only give the processes more to work with initially than they would without that scheme. They add to the available allele pool they do not make the selection or distribution of alleles any faster. My view. Evolution ran, not at any rate, but just ran day by day, generation by generation, for both lineages, but one took longer than the other for some various reasons dealing with chemistry, allele pool, environment, fecundity, luck, and circumstance. Evolution does not speed up or slow down in comparison between sets of phenotypes. Each phenotype takes however long it takes generation to generation and comparisons between phenotypes are useless since each evolves by its own unique circumstance. Is this just semantics on my part? Is the "evolution" of the fruit fly "faster" than that of the elephant? Or does evolution just plod along dependant on the inputs? Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1702 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Even if mutations galore increased the genetic diversity enormously in a population or gene/allele pool, even to the point that every trait is changed for every individual and every gene has so many alleles you can't identify them, what you'd have is a motley crew of individuals that differ wildly from one another in all those traits, some large, some small, some with purple fur, some with scales instead of fur, and every possible combination. Clearly it doesn't ever happen. But if it did some particular number of individuals would have to be selected in order to get a new breed or species, that is, for evolution of the population as a whole to occur. Which would have to happen to get a new species.
And selection eliminates. If you get an isolated new population of all these individuals with all their new characteristics that population will eventually blend those characteristics together until a particular phenotype emerges and it's got a look of its own: a new breed or species. That's what selection does. It will eventually blend tog3ether whatever proportions of traits are in the new set of individuals, their new collection of gene/allele frequencies, and eliminate others from the population. (Of course if mutations really did occur at such a rate as I describe it above you could never ever get a population with its own peculiar characteristics, never a breed let alone a pure breed, which already defeats the whole idea but anyway...) Unless you want to say that getting only a population made up of mutts is evolution, because that's all you'll ever get; you'll never get the specialized new phenotypes ordinarily recognized as a new species or breed, you know a whole population with the same characteristics, a whole population of trilobites that look alike, a whole population of raccoons with identical markings, a whole breed of greyhounds or chihuahuas or Great Danes, a whole population of little green men with antennae on their heads. Not only is there no "rate of evolution," there is no evolution as defined by the ToE. abe: What you call speciation could never happen, which is a population with its own overall characteristics that clearly differentiate it from its parent population. (Of course it would have sufficiently diminished genetic diversity to make further evolution impossible, but anyway.... Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
quote: And nobody says that it does happen or expects it to happen, except in a (very) long-term absence of any selection (which also never happens). It is even less realistic than your constant decline in diversity. In reality the processes of mutation and selection tend to a balance (depending on population size). As we should expect, given that there is an element of negative feedback to selection and mutation is constant.
quote: Unfortunately for you you are not God, so reality is quite free to ignore your imaginings. And it does. Your refusal to consider any realistic scenario is only proof of your prejudice against evolution.
quote: If we are restricted to the scenarios you imagine. However neither we nor reality are so restricted.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024