Questioning The Evolutionary Process

Well, seeing how evolution has been so well verified that one can safely assume that it is the correct description of the history of life on earth, why would they deny it? You'd have to be kind of a nut to do so.That's not to say that the atheists, agnostics, pantheists, and deists here aren't nuts, but denial of evolution isn't where they express their nuttiness. Biblical literalists, by definition, are going to be the ones whose nuttiness involves, among other nutty things, denial of evolution.

Good idea.Why don't you address my last two posts? Mutations are usually spontaneous, yes.But the ToE ≠ genetic determinismism.That said, some traits are one gene-one trait and some traits are polygenic.I'm sure you're aware that eye color is polygenic. So, yes, eye color is "genetically determined".Most traits, however, are too complex to be linked to one (or even several) gene(s). Well, yes. It isn't a linear process (as you suggested earlier). I think it's fair to describe evolution as a crapshoot. After all, you are born with a particular genetic make up. You didn't have any choice in the matter.There are "rules", however. Among them, selection.But there are no "goals".Several people have already mentioned antibiotic resistance as an easily understood example of selection.Do you have a problem with antibiotic resistance as an example of selection?

Hi crashfrog. Nice avatar.You say--

quote:

---

Fitness is a measure of increase in gene frequency. Therefore it's a dimensionless ratio of the frequency of a specific allele as represented among all a population's alleles at that given locus.

---

So it is NOT an organismic trait, but a mathematical abstraction. In that case, it has nothing to do with evolution, or even biology, except by association. In the same way that census-taking, or consumer preference surveying, are associated with human biology.I prefer to stick to biology proper, and consider 'fitness' as meaning 'fitted, suited, or adapted to current environmental circumstances', that is as an empirically observable 'trait'. Unfortunately, that definition implies function, purpose, and teleology, none of which can be allowed in materialist biology. Is that why darwinians changed the definition of 'fitness' from mine to yours? I do believe it is.

quote:

---

Another way to look at it is that "fitness" measures the phenomenon where individuals who are adapted to their environment are successful, live longer, and reproduce more than other individuals who are not so adapted.

---

Or, to put it another way, "fitness" measures
Well, wait now. You can measure length in numbers, too; does that make it not an empirical, scientific phenomenon?[/quote]No, because all measurements are artificial mathematical abstractions. The measurement is not "the piece of lumber", "the map is not the country", "the pint glass is not the beer", and the measured distance between the earth and the moon is not that space.Mathematics is not science. It is notional, not empirical. But feel free to argue that science and math are the same thing, therefore statistics and biology are the same thing. That's what Ronald Fisher, et al, seemed to believe.

quote:

---

Molarity would be another measurement that comes in numbers; are you saying that measuring the amount of substance present in a solution is not a scientific endeavor?

---

No, and I'm not saying that math is not a useful scientific tool when it comes to descriptions. In some cases it works even better for describing phenomena then verbal language does. I'm just saying that although measurement is a scientific endeavor, it is not science itself, which is empirical, but a useful, albeit artificial and abstract, tool of science, and I think it important, when discussing evolutionary biology, to separate the empirical origins of properties, qualities, traits, etc., from the counting of them, 'ex post facto'.

quote:

---

That can't be true, since we observe that populations experience natural selection of their individuals.

---

Well, that's the legend, at least.
First, we have yet to receive an empirical definition of "NS", just as, so far, we have only received your arithmetical definition of 'fitness' as a differential of comparitive fecundity. To be 'fit' is to be prolific. I'm not sure that's true at all, BTW.
Second, all we actually observe is that numbers of organisms fluctuate over time. Is the fluctuation of numbers over time your "natural selection"? If so, it's another conceptulization for use in the statistical arithmetic of biometrics, something very important in the study of the evolution of the contents of ecosystems, but not in evolutionary biology, which is the study of the origins of organic traits in organisms.

quote:

---

We observe that populations increase so as to exceed the carrying capacity of their environment, and that therefore not all organisms survive long enough to reproduce;

---

Well, actually, we sometimes observe that populations of particular organisms have increased beyond the carrying capacity of their environment. The human race being the most important example of this, both locally and globally. Which brings us back to the darwinist notion that 'fitness' is positive comparative fecundity. It would seem that at times, to be prolific is to be unfitted to your environment. Kinda contradictory.
IAC, this is all ecology, not evolution, unless you are discussing the evolutionm of ecosystems, or the evolution of numbers/measurements/statistics, rather than the evolution of organisms.

quote:

---

furthermore we observe in every instance that this differential survival is not random but intrinsically related to that organism's physical adaptations to environment.

---

Not true in this case, since there is no 'differential' survival in any general catastrophe, (such as a famine, flood, hurricane or what have you). What you do have are some organisms starving to death, while other very similar creatures do not, simply because there just isn't enough food for everybody and so somebody has to die. Frankly, in cases of famine, the differences between individuals are usually to slight to make a difference, and who lives and who dies is usually a matter of chance. That's what actual empirical studies of wild populations actually shows, in contrast to the theoretical assumption you voice, above. And let's not trot out the peppered moth and the Grant's finches just yet, since I've got too much on my plate right now to go into the flaws in those two over-worked examples, right now.

quote:

---

Organisms contain genes - they are the physical expressions of their genes.

---

So you are endorsing genetic determinism, I take it?

quote:

---

Thus, natural selection selects on individuals, which has an effect on the genetics of the entire population.

---

So which is it? Do genes direct, control and determine natural selection (whatever that is), or does natural selection direct, control and determine 'genes' (however they come to be defined)? Which is the horse and which is the cart?

So, when we say that a mammal has a 4-chambered heart, then this is not an "organismal trait", but a mathematical abstraction that has nothing to do with biology except by association?When we say that a certain weasel weighs one kilogram, then this is only an abstraction that has nothing to do with biology except by association?You certainly have an odd idea of biology, science, and mathematics.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

He's been ignoring my posts, too, m-girl.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

Neither.Before I try to continue this discussion, please address my upthread posts.

It's not hard to figure why.

No more than "size of population" is a mathematical abstraction. Fitness is merely another way to say "differential reproduction", it's just a way to describe what is obvious from observation - some individuals have physical advantages over their peers that result in greater reproductive success.It's not any more an abstraction than molarity is an abstraction. Fitness has never been defined as you define it. Your understanding of evolution, if we can even call it "understanding" when you don't understand it at all, isn't archaic or supplanted; it's idiosyncratic. If you cannot accept the use of measurement science, then I'm forced to wonder exactly what science you do accept, since I can't think of a single field where things are not measured, somehow.Weight is an abstraction to you? Molarity? Frequency? All these things are measurements. Are you truly saying that a valid science cannot measure anything? That's a truly ridiculous objection. How can you expect things to be empirical if scientists aren't allowed to take measurements? No, it's the observation. I've made the same observations with my own eyes. How can it not be real if it's happening right in front of me? In front of you? We've defined it as true, so there's no reason for your lack of certainty. We've defined "fitness" to represent the tendency of the progeny of better-adapted individuals to come to dominate a population. Thus, to be fit is to be prolific, for how else can an individual's offspring come to dominate a population except by outnumbering everybody else? And we see that many human populations are being reduced as a result of scare resources, as they are outcompeted by other humans for them.Or are you saying that no human being ever dies from starvation these days? I assure you that's not the case. So, who dies? The observation is that it isn't determined at random, like in a life lottery; the observation is that better-adapted individuals feed themselves while less-adapted individuals do not, and expire.That's natural selection. You've just proven it. That's absolutely false. Elmer, I assure you - there's absolutely nothing contentious about the fact that the phenotype of organisms is determined by genotype. If not how can you explain Mendel's observations, or any of the other truly countless experiments in genetics? The horse/cart model is not applicable here. Genes determine the traits of organisms (as proven by Mendel et al.) The traits of organisms determine which individuals are most successful in reproduction. The differential success of reproducing individuals determines what genes constitute the next generation of organisms.It's not the horse/cart model. It's the "life-cycle" model. Surely you've heard that term, "life-cycle"? What did you think it was referring to if not the cyclical nature of life?

Hi molbiogirl--You say--

quote:

---

Units of measure (feet, pounds, etc.) are arbitrary.

​

Hence, the metric system v. the English system.

​

Fitness is not arbitrary.

​

It is a measurement of a physical fact: allele frequency.

---

So I guess that you are saying that the basic unit of 'fitness', in darwinian terms, is one 'allele', however that word may come to be defined. (It kind of depends upon how 'gene' come to be defined,so far as I can tell). Seems to me that choosing the 'allele' as your basic unit of 'fitness' is an arbitrary act, just as choosing the word 'fitness' to describe statistical fluctuations in aggregations of DNA molecules was pretty darn arbitrary to start with. But hey, what do I know?

quote:

---

Would you have the same "philosophical" trouble with "the nonempirical world of mathematics" if I were to say "There are 12 crows in my front yard"?

​

The crows are there. I counted them.

​

Allele frequencies are there. We count them.

---

It's still arithmetic, not biology, so what's your point? If I said that there are 12 molecules in this container, would that be biology, or would it be arithmetic? Well, counting crows, or counting alleles, is no different.

quote:

---

Fitness is not synonymous with evolution.

​

Fitness and evolution are 2 different things.

---

Well, that's certainly undeniable if we accept the mathematical definition of 'fitness' that seems to be the standard darwinian concept. I mean, since 'evolution' is an empirical, organismic phenomenon, and 'fitness' is an arithmetic, abstract phenomenon, they are categorically different. [quote] wiki writes:
Fitness is a central concept in evolutionary theory.[quote] Well, darwinian evolutionary theory, that is.

quote:

---

It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype to reproduce,

---

No, it does not. It simply sums up the amount of reproduction in one case and makes local comparisons with others. The product is not the capacity to produce it. It's just a number.

quote:

---

and usually is equal to the proportion of the individual's genes in all the genes of the next generation. If differences in individual genotypes affect fitness, then the frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations;

---

That is a big "if"; an assumption being presented as an actual phenomenon. The fact is that "the frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations" no matter what, for any number of reasons, the least of them being genetic differences.

quote:

---

the genotypes with higher fitness become more common. This process is called natural selection.

---

Gee, this guy seems to think that 'fitness' _is_ 'natural selection'!! More confusion!

quote:

---

You'll notice that both fitness and natural selection are concepts within evolutionary theory.

---

Yeah. I also notice that, at least in wiki, they seem to be the same concept written two different ways.

quote:

---

A new trait arises thru mutation.

​

The new trait is acted on by the environment.

​

The new trait spreads thru a population.

​

That changes the allele frequency of the new trait.

​

What, exactly, don't you understand about this very simple idea?

---

Well, if you are going to make snide remarks implying that I'm stupid, I guess I'll ignore you in future, lady. As for the "simple idea", it is not that I do not understand it. I understand it perfectly. I just don't accept it.
It strikes me as simple-minded and superstitious. First you attribute novel traits to 'spontaneous generation', i.e., accidental genetic mutation, followed up an unfounded inference of mechanical, chemical, genetic determinism from molecule to trait, so that the one is simply the extension of the other, and then say meaningless junk like "The new trait is acted on by the environment.",etc., and then leap to the conclusion that there is some necessary connection between environmental action and the number of a certain 'allele'(whatever your definition) in a certain local population. Every bit of this stuff is at best, dubious.Learn not to diss people you don't know before you post to me again.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then what the (bleep) is it?

It would be chemistry, actually. I don't know that any of us think you're stupid, but it's abundantly obvious that you have a number of severe misconceptions about science, most especially your bizarre idea that if you're measuring something, it's not scientific.Taking measurements about aspects of the world around us, and then drawing explanatory models that explain those measurements and can predict future measurements is precisely what science is. Your idea that proper science can't include numbers or arithmetic is, hands-down, the most ridiculous misconception about science I've heard in all the years I've been posting here.Are you stupid? I don't think you're stupid at all. Indeed I'd say you have to be pretty smart to be able to talk yourself into something as incredibly wrong as the idea that science can't use numbers or measurements.

Hi bluegenes,You say--

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Elmer writes:
Well, call me old-fashioned, but attributing 'selection', an activity performed intelligently and volitionally by aware beings capable of weighing, comparing and contrasting the relative merits of different alternatives, i.e., making a choice and acting upon it, and attributing that power, that ability, that intellectual capacity, to a general abstraction called 'nature', is the essence of personification, i.e., "A figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities". Show me where I'm wrong.

​

I'm happy to call you old-fashioned.

---

Are you happy to admit that the use of 'selection' wrt darwinian evolution is a pure and simple case of personification? If not, why not?

quote:

---

From dictionary.com:

​

se·lec·tion /
4. Biology. any natural or artificial process that results in differential reproduction among the members of a population so that the inheritable traits of only certain individuals are passed on, or are passed on in greater proportion, to succeeding generations. Compare natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection, artificial selection.

---

Why are you citing the dictionary? I never claimed that darwinian biology has not co-opted the word to serve its purposes. Everybody knows that it has. I simply point out that they did it illegitimately, and show why their/your usage is illegitimate, albeit common, and now, after 150 years, is pretty much entrenched in the language.
BTW, the above description of 'selection' in the darwinian sense boils down to--"Any old thing that results in some organisms having more offspring than others do". Well, duh?!?

quote:

---

This thread is called:

​

Science forums - Biological Evolution - Questioning The Evolutionary Process. We're talking biology here.

​

You're certainly questioning the evolutionary process, which is fine, but please try not to use semantics to do so,

---

What do you mean, "semantics"? And why are "semantics", whatever you mean by that word, a 'no-no' in this debate? Personally, I define 'semantics' as 'meanings', and find 'meaning' indispensible to 'understanding'. Go on, call me old-fashioned-- again.

quote:

---

unless you have an understanding of the ever changing nature of language and the meaning of words.

---

I do. Certainly enough to recognise the difference between the natural, general usage evolution of a word meaning, and the artificial, self-serving corruption of a meaning, one made solely to serve the agendum of a certain few. As per L. Carroll's Humpty Dumpty. As is the case with the darwinian corruption of 'selection', 'fitness', 'mutation', and more than a few other words.

quote:

---

"I never said that we needed replace the concept of evolution with anything else. I said that we needed to replace materialism and its offshoots with something else. But since it is the darwinian notion of evolution via 'chance plus genetic determinism plus chance coincidence' that is used to prop up materialism, it has to go as well."

​

It has to? To be replaced with what? A vague desire for magic?

---

Actually, the reliance of darwinism upon 'spontaneous generation' and some vague mystical personification called 'natural selection' already satifies that "vague desire for magic".Darwinism needs to be replaced with a truly scientific causal explanation for evolution that is based upon a universally acting force, just as all the rest of science is based upon the existence of different universal forces. Evolution needs to be seen as a dynamic, systematic process, and not as a series of molecular accidents that just happened to turn out happily for the lucky few.

quote:

---

It's worth noting that much of the world does not suffer from materialism. Go to a very poor and struggling culture and you'll find very high levels of religious belief, accompanied by high levels of infant and child mortality, and low levels of life expectancy. This, presumably, is what you think the rest of us should aim for.

---

Oh, oh. Now you, too, are starting with the snide and uncalled for remarks.

quote:

---

Do you like seeing dead babies?

---

Nope. And I don't like reading trash, either.Bye.

No. I am not. In other words, an allele is a stretch of DNA.To repeat: Allelic frequncy is a percentage. It is a measure of how many individuals in a population have a particular allele. You seemed to have missed the point of the analogy.An inch is an abstract concept. There is no such thing as an "inch".We came up with it so we might have a way to talk about length.Counting, whether it's the number of crows in my front yard or the number of alleles in a population, is not an abstract concept.It is a physical fact.There are 12 crows in my front yard.12% of the population has the allele for red hair.Fitness is a measure of a physical fact (the presence or absence of a particular allele) used to determine (among other things) gene flow. It's used by biologists. Therefore it is considered "biology".btw. 12 molecules in a solution is a measure of molarity ... and it's chemistry, not biology.Using your line of (faulty) reasoning, molarity isn't chemistry, it's mathematics. And that is just plain silly. What other sort is there?You never did answer the Lamarck question put to you earlier.Are you a Lamarckian? If population A has 12% red hair and population B has 50% red hair and 50% of population B interbreeds with population A, there is a formula that will determine the number of progeny with red hair in the new (A + 1/2 B) population.If red hair has some effect on the ability to reproduce (say, for example, red hair makes it easier for a predator to find and eat the progeny), then the measure of the allelic frequency for red hair most certainly has something to tell us about reproductive success of red haired progeny. In your mind, perhaps.Fitness and selection are related, not synonymous.Fitness has an effect on the reproductive success of an individual. No. You are confused. Again.Fitness is determined by genotype + phenotype.The environment can act on fitness in any number of ways. That is, there are many different sorts of selective pressures in an environment.But there is only one genotype + phenotype for an individual (or group of individuals with a given genotype + phenotype). Given your confusion about the definitions of both fitness and selection, I don't think I was mistaken.You can't reject something you plainly do not understand.And you have yet to address the question of antibiotic resistance.It is a very simple, very easy to understand, example of selection.Perhaps you'd care to explain how antibiotic resistance is not an example of selection.Edited by molbiogirl, : sp

"Spontaneous generation" has a very specific meaning in biology.It means: life arising from nonlife.I think you meant to say "spontaneous mutation".And mutation -- which is most certainly random and spontaneous -- is a large part of evolution.I am assuming you find it highly unlikely that a random mutation could lead to an organism's survival (or death).How do you explain antibiotic resistance then?

Natural selection.Suppose we have 100 roaches and introduce them to roach poison. 98 of them die, while two remain alive, one male, one female. The roaches already had within them either the fitness to survive, or some other arbitrary gene that helped their survival because of a deletion, or a mutation, or was isolated for whatever reason.The two then procreate. The progeny of the progenitors now has a disposition more favorable than the previous 98 that died. Each successive roach that comes from the remaining pair will be more likely to have a resistance to the pesticide.With microbes, natural selection is even easier, and far more prevalent because they are so simple, with a tiny genome much smaller than even that of a cockroach. Any mutation will be more likely to fix in the next generation, which means the progeny will have adapted a resistance.That's evolution 101, right? Well, partially. Here's the kicker. Organisms can do that all day long. But a microbe will always be a microbe. You can breed a dog 100 different ways. In the end, you'll still have a dog. You can cross-breed roses with other flowers, but as the adage goes: a rose is still a rose by any other name.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake