Natural selection

[Ichneumonwasp]

In human society? Surivive and reproduce? Absolutely.
How many humans are you aware of that failed to survive/reproduce due to them being of half the average intelligence?
Just watch Jeremy Kyle, Springer or Rikki Lake ... particularly the "Who's The Daddy" paternity test shows

Again, jokes aside, half the normal intelligence -- which is what you were asked -- would be an IQ of 50. Below 50 you are essentially institutionalized or die. Or have a very nice family who politely pull you off cousin Theresa when she comes over for butterscotch pie.

People with an IQ of 50 or below generally do not reproduce.

There is a well-recognized phenomenon through which folks of a certain weight tend to choose others of a similar weight and those of similar intelligence do the same. Folks with an IQ of 80 or 90 (which you mention above) tend to choose others of similar IQ. That does not discount the possibility of sexual selection increasing intelligence in humans. There are problems with the idea of sexual selection for intelligence on a global scale, of course, but we all know that smart chicks like smart dudes. Especially guitar gods.

 

[shadron]

That would be the long answer, wouldn't it?

By developing things like medicine, social structures like welfare or charity and vast technological innovations to help us live in any environment; and at the same time developing new ways of killing vast amounts of the population, we surpassed the "survival of the best adapted".

I don't think that is true. Humans haven't (yet) precluded evolution; what they've been able to do is to change the environment so that what fits best in that environment is changed as well.

 

[Foster Zygote]

They can be the unavoidable side-effects of something that is overall highly adaptive. In the case of homosexuality, I suggest that it could be pair-bonding that is the adaptive trait.

I think it's safe to say that sexual reproduction is one of the most highly adaptive traits ever. If the occasional variation in gender attraction is a consequence of a mechanism involved in sexual reproduction then it is certainly much more advantageous to have those variations than to eliminate them and in so doing eliminate a major component of reproductive success in the majority of the population.

 

[plumjam]

Simple. Because you don't actually learn anything and don't adequately question your own underlying assumptions. We tell you this stuff, and it obviously never sinks in.

Who is "we"?

You tell me. Why are you so oblivious to such information?

For myself, because it is not at all convincing. As it isn't for millions of others.

There is no 'real problem' -- there is a fundamental difference in beginning assumptions.

What are these?

You seem to have a straw mansion built of unwarranted assumptions about this information and you seem to refuse to want to learn any of the details that would sweep away the cobwebs. Tell me why? You are the one repeating the same errors

.
You keep going on about these details. As do several others. It's an emerging fact to me that in evolution threads people talk about supposed evidence without presenting it. Care to teach me any details?

What elementary aspects of life can't it explain?

The origin of life. The first cell. From unicellular life to multicellular life...etc..etc.. etc..
Got details?

I'm terribly sorry, but I generally try to be nice to theists and give them a break, but that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard any of you say. Support this assertion or withdraw it.

Sure. Read Dawkins. He tries to apply his own pet theory from his own small area of study to the whole of reality... viz. memes, multiverses.. this is ideology - applying the evolutionary process to everything.

Why, yes, they have. The definition of species is based, in part, on their inability to mate, so yes they have stopped being the previous species of fruit fly. Give them time and you will see greater and greater divergence.

see bolding: In other words this has never ever happened (otherwise we'd all know about it, and the scientist in question would have won the Nobel Prize and be a household name in households that have bookshelves. How many years would be a reasonable time to wait, breeding fruitflies? A million?

Yes, let's cut the BS. Do you know how much diversity would engulf the world if a new species arose within every ten years in a lab?

Lol.. where's the logic there?

Do you have any conception of how many morphological changes are required for us to see large differences in divergent species so that they look different to us and we immediately recognize them as separate species? No?

Huh? Ever heard of dissection and a microscope?
How many organisms have existed in the last 150 years? Many trillions, I'm sure. How many have been observed morphing into something else? None
How many in selective breeding designed to push the limits? None
There comes a time, my friend, when you just have to do a reality check. Don't be so attached to a particular dogma. Look at history. See how many times the scientific establishment spent, sometimes, decades defending a losing argument.
Darwinism has had 150 years to prove itself. It hasn't worked.
What do Darwinists have to rely on now?
Computer programs!
Yeah, it's a frickin joke.
The reality won't fit the theory. So to perpetuate the theory you have to create computer programs that will come up with the desired "results".
Please. See through it.

All the best.

The truth is out there, but lies are in your head.*

* Terry Pratchett Sorry, couldn't resist.

Hmm.. Pratchett.. well, I won't say it, out of politeness

 

[Wowbagger]

Well, one of the causes you gave, cosmic rays, is as about as random as it gets. Bonds, the breaking and reestablishing of, are all probababilistic processes governed by precisely the quantum process you speak of.

So not only are they random for all intents-and-purposes, they are currently believed to be truely, naturely random.

My point was the mutations ultimately have causes. Perhaps my example was not the best?

Let's get back to the original issue:
Plumjam said "Determinism and Darwinism cannot both be simultaneously true". But, that is like saying gravity and determinism cannot both be true. It does not make any sense.

The theory of Evolution models life in a manner that is theoretically deterministic, at the large scales it works in. It does not describe quantum-level fluctuations, where real randomness apparently occurs.

Any complex or chaotic systems, that we do not understand, hence think of as random, is really a temporary ignorance. In principal (though, not necessarily in actuality) we can develop Darwinian evolution in a manner that is very deterministic.

What of demonstrable veridical explanatory value has been added to human understanding by the concept of the meme? In other words, why is it useful for man to use the word 'meme' rather than pre-existing words such as: idea, concept, thought, fashion, fad, philosophy, ideology, argument etc..etc.. ?

Memetics is a model of cultural elements, that is based on their replication. Memes do NOT replace other theories of culture or ideas. It adds a new tool to the mix.

It might be best to describe memetics as a proto-science, instead of a hard science. It is certainly NOT a pseudo-science, since it is a useful model to scientists.
But, developing new discoveries in cultural realms is not an easy task. Still, some progress has been made:

*Jack Harich has used memes to describe several aspects of culture, that were not describes by previous models, very well, such as how solutions to difficult problems are found and evolve: http://www.thwink.org/sustain/articles/007/MemeticEvolutionOfSolutions.htm
And how corruption arises from feedback loops within political battles (racing to the bottom, in the race to the top):
http://thwink.org/sustain/articles/005/DuelingLoops_Paper_SDR.pdf

* Virus mind concepts, such as those popularized by author Richard Brodie, explain how religions arise, and develop ideas that are more advantageous to the religion's own survival, than to the people who follow it.

There were other good examples, in the Journal of Memetics, but it seems to have gone off line.

I nearly forgot that I started a thread on this subject: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70215
Perhaps I will start a new one soon, with everything I learned, since then. In the meantime, we can toss a few extra entries to discuss the concept, in there, without further derailing this one.

Does the term meme apply equally to true ideas as well as to false ideas?

Some false ideas spread quite well: The idea that psychics can find missing bodies, better than trained police detectives can, for example.

Other ideas that are true, take a while before people to pick up: It was twenty years, or so, after the invention of automotive air bags, before car makers decided to widely adopt them.

Ideas that are true might have a tendency to survive longer, but not necessarily. There are other factors: Catchiness, cultural bias, psychological trickery, etc.

The origin of life. The first cell. From unicellular life to multicellular life...etc..etc.. etc..
Got details?

I happen to be reading a few books on life's origins, right now. They do use aspects of evolution to describe how the first cells emerged. There are two categories of theories, right now, which are not even completely mutually exclusive: Elements of both could be true simultaneously, but only time and patience with experiments will tell us how, and not all the experiments are done yet. The categories are, roughly speaking: "RNA-World" and "Metabolism-First". I will provide some details in a new thread, eventually.

It is naïve to assume evolution could never explain the first cells.

ETA: I should point out: The evolution involved in pre-life and the earliest inklings of life, might not necessarily have been Darwinian in nature, since selection units would be non-existent or very primitive. But, in a more general sense, evolution (meaning changes over time, either Darwinian or not) could still be used as a tool to explain the origins of life.

In a human made diagram it might be placed, before, during, after, or in between. It would all be equally correct (that is to say: incorrect). Natural selection doesn't wait until the "fitness landscape" and "the candidates" are "built", it is there from the beginning. It is not some outside force that never changes; it is itself in constant flux and even subject to "natural selection" itself.

Perhaps we should continue the randomness discussion in another thread. I suspect this is merely a semantic disagreement we are having. I suspect we both recognize the same concepts about evolution, but are conflicting with our differing definitions of things, and stuff like that. I could be wrong, but we are not going to resolve the matter in this He-Said-She-Said sort-of way.

I will try to write what I was trying to convey in a clearer manner.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Who is "we"?

The many and varied people involved in these discussions with you. Please don't pretend that you haven't heard this information before.

For myself, because it is not at all convincing. As it isn't for millions of others.

We -- yes that same generic 'we' -- have repeatedly noted that you seem to have some problems with the basics. Do you know how the theory works? You seem to have some very wrong underlying assumptions based on the quesitons you ask.

What are these?

I and others have pointed out various issues in other posts. Probably the biggest difference in assumption is that you approach this from a teleological standpoint and probably cannot see the non-teleological approach that others assume from the outset. This is a very common theme running through threads such as this.

You keep going on about these details. As do several others. It's an emerging fact to me that in evolution threads people talk about supposed evidence without presenting it. Care to teach me any details?

Sure, where do you want to start? Want to start with basic theory? Want to start with definitions of species?

The origin of life. The first cell. From unicellular life to multicellular life...etc..etc.. etc..
Got details?

Got plenty of details but no completed picture. What does this have to do with natural selection? You said there were things that natural selection can't account for and you throw out abiogenesis? When you have repeatedly been told that Darwin's theory does not even address it? You do know the difference between Darwin's theory and the underlying materialist assumptions do you not? Do you have a problem with Darwin or with Thales?

Sure. Read Dawkins. He tries to apply his own pet theory from his own small area of study to the whole of reality... viz. memes, multiverses.. this is ideology - applying the evolutionary process to everything.

Gosh and so that applies to all of science? How generous of you. I had no idea that Dawkins was quite so powerful.

see bolding: In other words this has never ever happened (otherwise we'd all know about it, and the scientist in question would have won the Nobel Prize and be a household name in households that have bookshelves. How many years would be a reasonable time to wait, breeding fruitflies? A million?

General consensus for speciation events is around 10,000 years. Since we have seen speication events in the lab, maybe 200-300 years of intense pressure with isolation of groups with big changes would do the trick. Something on that order probably, but it's just a guess.

Lol.. where's the logic there?

You are the one suggesting that it should be easy, if this theory is correct, to produce new species easily in the lab. Since we haven't the theory must be wrong. Such rapid change would produce an entirely different biosphere from what we actually see. Your argument is bunk.

Huh? Ever heard of dissection and a microscope?
How many organisms have existed in the last 150 years? Many trillions, I'm sure. How many have been observed morphing into something else? None
How many in selective breeding designed to push the limits? None
There comes a time, my friend, when you just have to do a reality check. Don't be so attached to a particular dogma. Look at history. See how many times the scientific establishment spent, sometimes, decades defending a losing argument.

You must be kidding. Please tell me that you did not mean this seriously. Watch something morph into something else? Is that what you think the theory predicts -- the X-men?

Please explain to me, correctly using the word 'dogma' what dogma it is to which I am so attached. I would appreciate if you could try to do so without piling straw higher than the mountains on Mars while you are at it.

Darwinism has had 150 years to prove itself.

Yes. And it has. Admirably.

What do Darwinists have to rely on now?
Computer programs!

That is just ignorant. Is this how little you actually know about the subject?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How many organisms have existed in the last 150 years? Many trillions, I'm sure. How many have been observed morphing into something else? None

If you think species evolved by an individual organism morphing into a new species, you are sorely mistaken. Every individual dies the same species it was born. Evolution doesn't happen by morphing.

In each generation, there is variation among the offspring. (There are many sources of variation. Mutation is the one people mostly talk about, but not the only one.) Natural selection means that the variants that are more fit are the ones that reproduce more successfully, so those traits are represented in greater proportion in the subsequent generation.

No organism morphs into another species.

If you're wondering whether we have ever witnessed speciation over a single generation, we actually have. One of the other sources of variation is polyploidy (doubling, tripling, quadrupling or whatever of the chromosomes). In some plants species, polyploids result in a viable offspring. In some of them, the new species is unable to cross back with the parent species.

In most cases, speciation happens more gradually, and usually depends on populations living in at least partial isolation from one another. The accumulation of new traits eventually results in two populations whose individual members can no longer cross with each other.

Again, an individual organism does not morph into a new species. That's why such a thing has never been observed.

 

[Walter Wayne]

My point was the mutations ultimately have causes. Perhaps my example was not the best?

Random does not mean uncaused? And I can't think of anything a layman would call random that is uncaused. So I am not sure what you're getting at.

Let's get back to the original issue:
Plumjam said "Determinism and Darwinism cannot both be simultaneously true". But, that is like saying gravity and determinism cannot both be true. It does not make any sense.

Yeah, as far as I can tell that statement is an argument by assertion. There is nothing that fundamentally makes determinism and Darwinism mutually exclusive. I think that is as much as needs to be said to refute that. Argue that it is deterministic is wrong.

The theory of Evolution models life in a manner that is theoretically deterministic, at the large scales it works in. It does not describe quantum-level fluctuations, where real randomness apparently occurs.

That isn't so. There is nothing theoretically determistic about the theory of evolution. Some models create highly determistic results when the model uses simplified fitness scapes, and relatively stong environmental bias towards certain genes. (The blind watchmaker youtube video, occasionally linked to on this forum, has a 100% bias on the best timekeeper).

Any complex or chaotic systems, that we do not understand, hence think of as random, is really a temporary ignorance. In principal (though, not necessarily in actuality) we can develop Darwinian evolution in a manner that is very deterministic.

That complex systems randomness is a product of ignorance is untrue. One can know the precise state of every particle in a system, and still not be able to predict the system state at a later time. If the system is sufficiently complex, the variation in your expected output is actually incredibly high. The fundamental unpredictability of such a system is not a product of ignorance.

In theory you can model evolution many different ways, but if you want to reflect the reality the model will not be deterministic.

Walt

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That complex systems randomness is a product of ignorance is untrue. One can know the precise state of every particle in a system, and still not be able to predict the system state at a later time. If the system is sufficiently complex, the variation in your expected output is actually incredibly high. The fundamental unpredictability of such a system is not a product of ignorance.

In theory you can model evolution many different ways, but if you want to reflect the reality the model will not be deterministic.

Walt

So, you are here essentially arguing that the whole concept of determinism is false -- that determinism can only be trivially true in highly simplistic systems.

Is that your point? If so, then why argue any of this? It means only that virtually everything not highly contrived is random because the world 'out there' is so complex.

A consequence is that discussions of randomness are trivial.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

That complex systems randomness is a product of ignorance is untrue. One can know the precise state of every particle in a system, and still not be able to predict the system state at a later time. If the system is sufficiently complex, the variation in your expected output is actually incredibly high. The fundamental unpredictability of such a system is not a product of ignorance.

In theory you can model evolution many different ways, but if you want to reflect the reality the model will not be deterministic.

Walt

Is a computer a "complex system"?

Do we know the precise state of every particle in a computer when it is operating?

Can we reliably predict the output of a computer program?

 

[Walter Wayne]

So, you are here essentially arguing that the whole concept of determinism is false -- that determinism can only be trivially true in highly simplistic systems.

Is that your point? If so, then why argue any of this? It means only that virtually everything not highly contrived is random because the world 'out there' is so complex.

A consequence is that discussions of randomness are trivial.

I wouldn't say deterministism can only be "trivially" true. Some systems are random in only the most technical sense of the word. Mix two chemicals in a beaker, and the reaction rate is predictable with an incredibly high precision. Stellar evolution is pretty much determistic as well. There are a large number of systems that while random in the most technical sense (the sense mijo argues), but are determistic for nearly all intents-and-purposes.

The extent that randomness at a base level effects the overall process is a function of the properties of the system. Regarding Ivor's question about computers, there are a great example of a system that is determistic at the higher level. Randomness (noise) in the electrical signals can be, and is, basically ignored. The CPU operates such that the noise on a "0" or "1" doesn't amount to a level where the computer might confuse one for the other. I certainly would never say that determinism is trivial when discussing such my PC.

This has all been discussed in other threads, and I think we are just going to end up rehashing what was said earlier. Briefly, if you want my opinion
- Some things are random at the fundamental level, and unpredictably isn't necessarily a result of imprecise knowledge
- How randomness is reflected at the higher level is a function of the characteristics of process involved.
- Evolutions is random at the macro level due to properties I've mentioned elsewhere, as well as for reasons that Earthborn stated.

Walt

 

[MRC_Hans]

Short answer: You cannot apply Darwin's theory to human societies.

You can to humanity as such, however. Humanity differs from most other flock animals (among other things, obviously) in that the elite does not have the privilege to breed.

So how does this fit with evolution?

Well, the breeding privilege that the dominant flock animal has, comes at a cost. If it is male (and it most often is), it must use most of its strength to fight other males eager to take over its position. This selects for big, strong and aggressive males, and while they can sire all offspring when in dominance, they will often soon be replaced.

So, in a way, you could see this system as an evolutionary blind alley; while it works quite fine, it locks the species into breeding ... dominant males.

You can say that humans have managed to transcend this stage; breeding is carried by all members (which is also more efficient because a human offspring takes a lot of resources and time to raise), and the dominant ones can concentrate on furthering the interests of the flock (and hence themselves).

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

In human society? Surivive and reproduce? Absolutely.
How many humans are you aware of that failed to survive/reproduce due to them being of half the average intelligence?
Just watch Jeremy Kyle, Springer or Rikki Lake ... particularly the "Who's The Daddy" paternity test shows

And stubborn creationists .

Plumjam, you are arguing from willful ignorance.

Now, I sometimes visit a staunch Creationist forum (I suppose I'm a masochist), and you see the same arguments there. There is a difference, though: They don't get the information (at least not on the forum), because evolutionists are censored. You do, however, but you continue to ignore it and spew the same old straw men. Being unconvinced by counterarguments is one thing. Being unperturbed by them is quite another.

Hans

 

[dakotajudo]

The theory of Evolution models life in a manner that is theoretically deterministic, at the large scales it works in.

You should rephrase this. Some theoretical models of evolution are deterministic.

Lotka-Volterra systems, for example. And these models work well to describe the behavior of some simple ecosystems; but not precisely, because of the inherent randomness in biological interactions.

Other models, especially those used in population genetics, do include random components, or an assumption of randomness - i.e. random mating in the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.

It seems to me that you're getting deep into the philosophy of chaos and complexity. But, biologically speaking, it matters little. In the next few minutes, my cat is going to jump off my lap. Will she go left, or right? Will she go to the kitchen, or the bedroom? If you want to argue that her behavior is strictly deterministic, perhaps you've not owned cats?

Perhaps that's a contrived example, but it's the kind of behavior that makes population diffusion models stochastic.

Scientists involved in artificial selection - breeding - know this. Variance due to environmental effects are typically much larger than genetic effects.

Selection is an ongoing process occurring in constantly and randomly changing environment. Is the environment strictly deterministic, or is it something that can be modeled as a deterministic system?

 

[dakotajudo]

Is a computer a "complex system"?

In the sense of mathematical complexity, of the type Wowbagger is implying? No.

Complex systems, in the mathematical sense, are described by simple differential equations that imply multiple stable steady states and transitions between states that are sensitive to initial conditions. This makes the evolution of the system over time is hard to predict.

Does that describe computer transistors?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I wouldn't say deterministism can only be "trivially" true. Some systems are random in only the most technical sense of the word. Mix two chemicals in a beaker, and the reaction rate is predictable with an incredibly high precision. Stellar evolution is pretty much determistic as well. There are a large number of systems that while random in the most technical sense (the sense mijo argues), but are determistic for nearly all intents-and-purposes.

The extent that randomness at a base level effects the overall process is a function of the properties of the system. Regarding Ivor's question about computers, there are a great example of a system that is determistic at the higher level. Randomness (noise) in the electrical signals can be, and is, basically ignored. The CPU operates such that the noise on a "0" or "1" doesn't amount to a level where the computer might confuse one for the other. I certainly would never say that determinism is trivial when discussing such my PC.

This has all been discussed in other threads, and I think we are just going to end up rehashing what was said earlier. Briefly, if you want my opinion
- Some things are random at the fundamental level, and unpredictably isn't necessarily a result of imprecise knowledge
- How randomness is reflected at the higher level is a function of the characteristics of process involved.
- Evolutions is random at the macro level due to properties I've mentioned elsewhere, as well as for reasons that Earthborn stated.

Walt

Yes, I don't want to derail this into another 'random' discussion, but to repeat one of the other major points and why I brought up the issue with the way you stated your post, it depends on the level of observation how we label the process.

With stellar evolution, we look at an extremely large system from a great distance (pun only half-way intended). If we were to look at any particular grouping of atoms in the plasma or any particular species within a plasma we would be much less certain and would need to speak in terms of probabilities.

When we speak of evolution, though, folks tend to focus on small groups of organisms or individuals where the randomness is obvious. Just as we can accurately gauge pressure based on the individual random action of gas molecules, we can accurately predict that organisms as a whole will survive if they are adapted better to their environment. That is really all that evolutionary theory states, and that view of it is essentially determined (a fairly trivial thing to say, yes, but much more analogous to stellar evolution or the action of gases). Now, each individual and each species within that larger grouping is so subject to random forces that the randomness of the system at a lower level is quite apparent. But the same is true of species of molecules in a gas or local groups of atoms within a plasma.

 

[delphi_ote]

To answer the original post without being smarmy, the "health" of the affluent is the result of being able to afford a healthier lifestyle. Unless we imagine there are "wealth genes," that kind of "health" is not genetic and can't be inherited. Because of this, there's nothing for nature to select for or against.

 

[dakotajudo]

To answer the original post without being smarmy, the "health" of the affluent is the result of being able to afford a healthier lifestyle. Unless we imagine there are "wealth genes," that kind of "health" is not genetic and can't be inherited. Because of this, there's nothing for nature to select for or against.

Are you sure?

For several different human populations, historically, owning cattle was a form of wealth.

Now, milk is promoted as a cheap, high-quality source of nutrition. But there is certain barrier to acceptance of a diet high in dairy protein among populations that didn't evolve adult lactose tolerance.

The definition of a healthy lifestyle has a genetic component.

Or consider the impact of gluten sensitivity in regions where the main cereal crop is rice or corn instead of wheat; or where poverty limits food options.

 

[Belz...]

How did human beings manage to escape something that's supposed to be a universal principle of biology?
(*whispers*, it wouldn't be free will, would it? )

No, it wouldn't.

 

[martu]

For myself, because it is not at all convincing. As it isn't for millions of others.

This is could be one of two things:

1) You are ignorant of evolutionary theroy.
2) You are willfully ignorant of evolutionary theroy.

I choose 2.