Dover Penn ID trial

[Mercutio]

So what would you call these selections made by nature? Non-artificial selection?

I would call them whatever label was appropriate which might vary from case to case. What I would not do is call them something that sounded right but which has a particular technical definition fitting only one of the phenomena.

In behaviorism, Skinner (perhaps unwisely, perhaps wisely) used some fairly common words in new and technically defined ways, giving us the phrases negative reinforcement and positive punishment, each of which makes perfect sense within the system, but which may sound either oxymoronic or nonsensical in casual conversation. Indeed, I have seen business textbooks which (quite improperly) switch the two terms, apparently because the author confused something that sounded right with something that had a specific technical definition.

There is already enough trouble with Creationists intentionally misdefining "natural selection", as a rhetorical tool to fight Darwin on fronts where his theory does not apply. The cartoon I posted takes advantage of three different uses of "evolved" to (intentionally or ignorantly) make the theory of natural selection look unsupported. It is clear that this issue is important enough that it should be phrased carefully and precisely.

 

[delphi_ote]

Er, that puctuated equilibrium stuff?

Alright. Now I see where the confusion comes in. Punctuated equilibrium isn't caused by increased/decreased mutations. To give a quick rundown of the concept, I'll steal a couple quotes from talkorigins here:

the period of transition between parent species and daughter species is short compared to the period of time a species exists as a distinct form

significant adaptations developed or accentuated in the daughter species can lead to the rapid dispersal and establishment of a daughter species throughout the range of the ancestral species, or into new ranges. The ecological processes of dispersal and succession can occur very quickly compared to evolutionary processes of change.

So how does this relate to "The people who don't allow drastic & rapid change are neo-Darwinist evolutionists?"

 

[Dr Adequate]

I've got to give credit where it's due, though, Dr A. He's a right perfect foil. I've learned a lot reading these threads, and much of that was through refutations of hammy's posts.

Which is sweet, but this thread is about the Dover ID trial.

If hammy wants to blather on about his unique undiscoverable genius, then he can start a thread about it.

 

[hammegk]

I didn't realize that evolution has anything to do with dynamical systems that are attracted to particular states when trajectories get close enough.

~~ Paul

Ask BillHoyt. He made the initial suggestion -- one I agree with in the sense significant and rapid mutation points exist. Cats are not Dogs, critters above the K-T boundary break with those below. We could always discuss the Mid-Cambrian Explosion -- a few million years at most produced phenotypes we still don't understand -- the the actual time involved is unknown. The canid phenotype has been prodded to produce extreme body-types in just a few thousand years.


Today, we are faced with the fact that at the genotype level significant and catastrophic occurences are known, and needed for change -- gene-splicing, anyone? Micro-ev? I think not.

HI. Remeber me? Remember how on every thread you posted on, I challenged you to define the boundary between micro-evolution and macro-evolution?

And you couldn't?

Well you still can't.

Agreed. And on your side, you can't even figure out what a "species" is. Species, you know, that thing you want to teach The Origin of? "Remeber"?

Which is sweet, but this thread is about the Dover ID trial.

So are my comments. You just don't understand your opponents.


delphi_ote: I'd agree a gene-splice doesn't take long.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Today, we are faced with the fact that at the genotype level significant and catastrophic occurences are known, and needed for change -- gene-splicing, anyone? Micro-ev? I think not.

Just because major change can be produced by gene-splicing, doesn't make such a major, one-time overhaul a requirement for major change. Other catastrophic occurrences are known, too. Mass extinction, anyone?

 

[Melendwyr]

There is already enough trouble with Creationists intentionally misdefining "natural selection", as a rhetorical tool to fight Darwin on fronts where his theory does not apply. The cartoon I posted takes advantage of three different uses of "evolved" to (intentionally or ignorantly) make the theory of natural selection look unsupported. It is clear that this issue is important enough that it should be phrased carefully and precisely.

And that careful, precise definition does not exclude the situations I mentioned. "Natural selection" refers to the winnowing process and has nothing to do with reproduction. Nor does it have to be acting upon biological organisms. It's just the mechanism that drives the evolution of those organisms.

It's called "the Theory of Evolution", not "the Theory of Natural Selection", for just that reason.

 

[Mercutio]

And that careful, precise definition does not exclude the situations I mentioned. "Natural selection" refers to the winnowing process and has nothing to do with reproduction. Nor does it have to be acting upon biological organisms. It's just the mechanism that drives the evolution of those organisms.

It's called "the Theory of Evolution", not "the Theory of Natural Selection", for just that reason.

Again, Darwin's summary of natural selection:
IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
IF there is variability of traits, and
IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,
THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive

This is the process. The result of this process is evolution. Unless you wish to argue that river rocks reproduce and inherit, with variability, characteristics from their progenitors, and that the environment can only support so many rocks...then your example simply do not fit the definition.

You say that only evolutionary biology uses this term this way. Can you provide examples of other areas using this technical term in other ways?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Agreed. And on your side, you can't even figure out what a "species" is. Species, you know, that thing you want to teach The Origin of? "Remeber"?

I remember you telling this pointless stupid lie before, yes. In your halfwitted fantasy world, no-one can define species. In the real world --- remember that? the one outside your padded cell? --- you have been told repeatedly that a species is a reproductively isolated variety.

So are my comments.

But you are just reciting the same tedious nonsense you always recite when we discuss biology. You haven't even tried to make it relevant to the goings-on in Dover, you've just taken another opportunity to bore us with your dreary, hopeless monomania.

 

[hammegk]

I remember you telling this pointless stupid lie before, yes. In your halfwitted fantasy world, no-one can define species. In the real world --- remember that? the one outside your padded cell? --- you have been told repeatedly that a species is a reproductively isolated variety.

And the reproductively isolated varieties mutate & get selected, remaining varietal. Your assertion that time, random mutations & natural selection lead to useful genotype changes -- macro-ev, a new "species" -- remains an unproven hypothesis.

My understanding is that at the microbiology level, the action occurs not in groups in isolation but in groups of mixed partners-- the more, the merrier.


I'm not the only monomaniac in these discussions. If you find me boring, try Ignore.

 

[delphi_ote]

I'd agree a gene-splice doesn't take long.

Do I dare ask what you're talking about and how it relates to punctuated equilibrium or your earlier claim that "The people who don't allow drastic & rapid change are neo-Darwinist evolutionists?"

 

[chipmunk stew]

Your assertion that time, random mutations & natural selection lead to useful genotype changes -- macro-ev, a new "species" -- remains an unproven hypothesis.

Wrong. It remains an unfalsified theory.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Your assertion that time, random mutations & natural selection lead to useful genotype changes -- macro-ev, a new "species" -- remains an unproven hypothesis.

Funny, it works in all the A-life programs I've heard of... But I suppose if I linked to one, you might redefine "useful". And as for species, you've done an excellent job of rendering your null hypothesis unfalsifiable by rejecting all definitions of "species" we have observed speciation with, and refusing to come up with a definition yourself. I suppose next you'll come up with a psychic prediction that I'm going to die in the future.

You know, I feel like I've learned more about irreducible complexity than Behe and most IDers from playing Armored Core than they have in their entire education. After all, I started out building up my AC to a multiweapon heavyweight, and got it all the way down to an irreducibly complex underweight. Even doing so during all the environmental changes through the series. (Big one for me: Energy and back weapon crisis of AC3: They removed the "Plus Powers" that cut down on booster energy use and the one that allowed bipeds to use back cannons while moving.)

 

[Melendwyr]

Let's look at which statements can be removed without invalidating the conclusion.

(1) IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
(2) IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
(3) IF there is variability of traits, and
(4) IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,
THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive[/i]

We can easily remove statements 1 and 2 and keep the conclusions, assuming that the different traits are not all equally likely to survive. (You forgot to stipulate that - without differential viability, change in the distribution of traits is not guaranteed by any combination of those statements.)

 

[Mercutio]

Let's look at which statements can be removed without invalidating the conclusion.

We can easily remove statements 1 and 2 and keep the conclusions, assuming that the different traits are not all equally likely to survive. (You forgot to stipulate that - without differential viability, change in the distribution of traits is not guaranteed by any combination of those statements.)

Not me, Darwin. This is not my version; you can remove statements 1 and 2, but in doing so you are now defining something else entirely.

 

[Melendwyr]

Not me, Darwin. This is not my version; you can remove statements 1 and 2, but in doing so you are now defining something else entirely.

No, you're not. For example, you don't need to assume that the environment cannot support all members - if some variations are more successful than others, they will eventually dominate the population. Voila! Evolution!

Darwin talked primarily about slow and gradual changes. That doesn't mean that the more rapid changes separated by periods of stasis postulated by punctuated equilibrium make PE not evolution. Likewise, forms of selection caused by environmental effects acting upon a population distribution are still natural selection, even if they don't match exactly what Darwin was talking about.

There's really not much else to be said. I'm really not interested in repeating this simple and obviously correct argument while you hold your fingers in your ears and hum. You're wrong, and that's all there is to it.

 

[Mercutio]

No, you're not. For example, you don't need to assume that the environment cannot support all members - if some variations are more successful than others, they will eventually dominate the population. Voila! Evolution!

That is #4, not #1 or #2, which were what you removed before. My point was that Natural Selection specifies that we are looking at organisms which reproduce and inherit from their progenitors, which is not the case with stars, pebbles, metals, etc.

Darwin talked primarily about slow and gradual changes. That doesn't mean that the more rapid changes separated by periods of stasis postulated by punctuated equilibrium make PE not evolution. Likewise, forms of selection caused by environmental effects acting upon a population distribution are still natural selection, even if they don't match exactly what Darwin was talking about.

Did you find sources in which things other than reproducing organisms are said to undergo "natural selection"? A journal where physicists use the term for the process of birth, death, rebirth of stars, for instance, would be enough for me to say I am wrong. I have only seen the term used as Darwin defined it, except by Creationists.

There's really not much else to be said. I'm really not interested in repeating this simple and obviously correct argument while you hold your fingers in your ears and hum. You're wrong, and that's all there is to it.

I am more than willing to admit I am wrong. So far, all you have done is assert.

 

[Melendwyr]

That is #4, not #1 or #2, which were what you removed before.

So? What's your point? (You don't actually have one - you just wanted to throw out an objection.)

My point was that Natural Selection specifies that we are looking at organisms which reproduce and inherit from their progenitors, which is not the case with stars, pebbles, metals, etc.

Not necessary. A limited set of entities with differential viability will experience a change in the distribution of traits - evolution.

I am more than willing to admit I am wrong. So far, all you have done is assert.

 

[Mercutio]

So? What's your point? (You don't actually have one - you just wanted to throw out an objection.)

Asked and answered. You even quoted it. Where I use the phrase "my point is..."

Not necessary. A limited set of entities with differential viability will experience a change in the distribution of traits - evolution.

Darwin himself said that natural selection was not the only mechanism of evolution. The change in distribution of traits--evolution--does not mean that the process behind it was natural selection.

I note that you have thus far declined to produce a source using the term as you do. That would have been a much more effective comeback than .

 

[delphi_ote]

Melendwyr, there may be a similarity between these ideas, but natural selection is a technical term with a precise definition. You don't like it when woos co-opt technical terms from other scientific fields out of context, do you?

Don't do it yourself!

 

[chipmunk stew]

Melendwyr, there may be a similarity between these ideas, but natural selection is a technical term with a precise definition. You don't like it when woos co-opt technical terms from other scientific fields out of context, do you?

Don't do it yourself!

Delphi, I think you must be having trouble creating your own quantum reality. If your energy field was fully charged you'd be able to see that pebbles evolve.