Evolution: the Facts.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As this particular thread is supposed to be about actual science, I'd like to see randman respond to this:

As I am a practicing phylogeneticist, and have read hundreds of papers on phylogenies, I am going to have to ask you to support this assertion with something more tangible than your opinion. Which phylogenies, more specifically, are you referring to when you claim that Darwinism -- for which will read "evolution", as that, in contrast to term one you choose, is a meaningful word -- does not predict the groupings of species? I have access to most of the journals that publish phylogenies, so just direct me to any article and I will see if I can get it. Please just select a phylogeny -- any phylogeny -- detail the groupings you believe evolutionary theory would have predicted, and wherein the differences impossible to explain by evolutionary theory between the predicted grouping and the obtained grouping are.

Shouldn't be hard, if the claims he's made in this thread are actually accurate. And, given that this is actual science being discussed, if he's correct, then everybody will have no choice but to concede that he's correct.

You'd have thought he'd jump at the chance, frankly, rather than ignoring all but one sentence of Kotatsu's comprehensive post.

 

[Dancing David]

Do you see it in this quote?



http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/popgen/popgen6.htm

So can you see where the concept of isolation is critical to the whole foundation of NeoDarwinism since evolution is considered to advance through speciation?

It's really a simple but sometimes overlooked point.

A note to others, if you actually did not understand evolutionary theory only happens for the origin of higher taxa, you really ought not to think or claim you have a basic understanding of evo theory and should just ask some questions to get a better handle on this or do some reading before you set about to argue.

Speciation # evolution

It is a subset of evolution or long term consequence of evolution, do the people in Africa with sickle cell anemia comprise another species, no. Do they have a trait that spreads because it leads to greater reproductive success, yes.

It may be the origin of the species, but there is more to it than that.

 

[Dancing David]

If one cannot understand why isolation of a population is necessary for evolution of the higher taxa via multiple sequential speciation events, nothing else is going to make sense. It's really no use discussing evolution until they at least have that basic concept down pat, and it's a very, very simple one.

If you can't explain it more that is not my fault, now is it. You have not explained or offered why it should be so.

The species that are in the geologic record are like car wrecks, they represent the random preservation of individuals.

If you only knew about cars from car wrecks, could you derive the routes travelled by the cars? Or the purpose of the car in driving?

 

[Paulhoff]

Paul

 

[Dancing David]

Just think about it. Explain to me how the higher taxa can evolve without sequential speciation.

We cannot mate with, say, a frog, right? We are sexually isolated.

Nope, your burden your proof, your claim that you understand so well you can't explain it.

What is a continuum?

Look at a rainbow, there are seven colors, right, look at it more closely, aren't those intermediate colors.

Now what forms a species after a long time period is different from what are the gradations of a species in the moment. There are the radiation of variants and the death of branches that create some of the differences we see today, but they were not always so.

We humans are great apes, we are most like the chimps and least like the gibbons. Was it always that way. Could you really tell at one point? Especially during the Miocene?

And please, your continued use of straw men like sex with frogs is ignorant, when was teh divergence between mammals and frogs? You silly person.

A suppose the words contingent history haven't been explained, so here is the deal, when did amphibians and mammals diverge?

Pick a time we shall call year zero.

Now you are silly because you haven't really thought about what the 'isolation' you perseverate about really means. It means not always physical separation, but it can, it can mean clading, temporal and all sorts of things that lead to pools of individuals that don't breed with each other. And time.

So year zero, we have similar populations, then what happens, lots and lots of time. Divergence can be caused by many things : physical distance, such as when populations are separated geographically, yet it could also be due to toxics just wiping out portions of the population in local areas, and many more.

And lots of time.

So it is not just 'isolation' it is a myriad of possible causes that support the development of separate pools of individuals with separate traits, they can even cross bread with each other for periods, depending on the numbers.

So at successive years after year zero the contingent history of the populations is what matters, food, predators, shelter, toxins, weather and especially which individuals breed and which ones don't.

It is a combination of a plurality of effects.

So the question of 'isolation' solely is some sort of monomaniacal focus on a single factor.

It matters who is breeding with whom, at year zero of the divergence of amphibians and mammals, there is no difference.

So to just say “Well , it must have been isolation”, is kind of a hammer as the only tool. There are other tools you know, and lots and lots of time. And what leads to the contingent history of the speciation is much more than ‘isolation’.

 

[Paulhoff]

Paul

 

[randman]

You really don't get such a basic point. Although some populations classified as species can and do mate successfully and produce reproducing species, but most don't among sexually reproducing organisms. The ones that do likely ought not to be called different species. There are some instances if this occurring across genera and even one across sub-families among whales as young earth creationists have amply cited.

But to some degree, that's just semantics. Most sexually producing species cannot mate and produce non-sterile offspring and very few instances across genera and none that I know across the family level. The higher taxa levels all are separated into groups that cannot mate with a species that not in their family, order, etc,...and almost never across genera and generally not across species.

We are talking about sexually reproducing species here. This is very basic biology most elementary children know and understand. Hopefully, you do as well?

So there is reproductive isolation among the different species from other species with a few exceptions (more of a semantic issue) and certainly nearly all other genera and higher taxa.

Maybe we should stop there and just see if there is agreement that is the case?

Or, we could venture into the matter just a little further before explaining more how isolation of subgroups is an essential aspect of Darwinian theory. The origin of higher taxa from genera, family, order, kingdom, etc,....occurs under a Darwinian perspective in a sequential sense of a group splitting off into a new species eventually, and then another group from that evolving a new species, etc, etc,...the idea is eventually this process of speciation results in higher taxa.

That's evolutionary theory. If some of you guys didn't realize that, you should know that's mainstream evo theory. It's not creationists or IDers making something up about evo theory. That's actually what Darwinism says happened.

There is no continuum under Darwinism. There is separation and reproductive isolation of populations. If you have been taught otherwise and actually believe there is a continuum, that's kind of sad really. Everyone knows, say, a cat cannot mate with a dog. Even a child knows that. There is no continuum as if all living, sexually reproducing creatures can still mate with one another. That's absolute lunacy.

By definition, the origin of higher taxa via sequential speciation events involves isolation. When or it taking a very long time, etc, etc,.....does not change that. You can bring up anything you want but it doesn't change this fact. Sexually reproducing creatures are reproductively isolated from other species (with some exceptions depending on how you classify species) and from nearly all genera and all species in other families.

Of course, sexual or geographic isolation is not the "only tool" but is a requirement for the origin of higher taxa. Unfortunately, if something this basic isn't clear, it's likely useless to try to explain other more complicated concepts.

 

[randman]

As this particular thread is supposed to be about actual science, I'd like to see randman respond to this:



Shouldn't be hard, if the claims he's made in this thread are actually accurate. And, given that this is actual science being discussed, if he's correct, then everybody will have no choice but to concede that he's correct.

You'd have thought he'd jump at the chance, frankly, rather than ignoring all but one sentence of Kotatsu's comprehensive post.

Already answered it.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The mammalian ear is thought to have evolved independently among mammals, not that the common ancestor of mammals had a mammalian ear.

You probably should have read the original paper rather than just linked to it or got your info from that C/Idiot blog. Right in the 2nd paragraph it notes:
There is also extensive evidence from fossils of extinct cynodont and mammaliaform relatives of modern mammals suggesting that the angular, articular, and quadrate bones in these creatures were used for hearing while still attached to the mandible and jaw hinge (6, 7).
{bold mine}

Take some time to look at the different "pairs' between placentals and mammals.

Placentals are mammals. The groupings for ear evolution is Monotremes and therians, all of which are mammals.

The Darwinian answer is that a random process still produced these pairs because of environmental pressures. That's ridiculous. What environmental pressures duplicated the mammalian ear, for example.

What do you mean by "pairs"? And apparently those pressures were present (seriously, you don't think accute hearing might be more valuable than multiple jaw bones) on the cynodonts and mammaliformes from which both the Monotreme and therian lines evolved modern mammalian ears.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Already answered it.

No you didn't. If you did, please link to the post in which you post specific issues with specific phylogenies.

 

[Dancing David]

You really don't get such a basic point. Although some populations classified as species can and do mate successfully and produce reproducing species, but most don't among sexually reproducing organisms. The ones that do likely ought not to be called different species. There are some instances if this occurring across genera and even one across sub-families among whales as young earth creationists have amply cited.

Yes, but the glaringly obvious point is that there is more to the ToE than speciation.

Iteration 2: Are the people who carry the sickle cell gene a separate species?

But to some degree, that's just semantics. Most sexually producing species cannot mate and produce non-sterile offspring and very few instances across genera and none that I know across the family level.

Yes, but the point is that the mechanisms of natural selection do not require isolation to change the occurrence of traits in a breeding population.

The higher taxa levels all are separated into groups that cannot mate with a species that not in their family, order, etc,...and almost never across genera and generally not across species.

yes and generally the tips of branches are separated on a tree or a bush, that dodoes not mean that they HAD to be isolated to develop separate lines.

We are talking about sexually reproducing species here. This is very basic biology most elementary children know and understand. Hopefully, you do as well?

I will now keep track
Straw diversion 1
[/quote]
So there is reproductive isolation among the different species from other species with a few exceptions (more of a semantic issue) and certainly nearly all other genera and higher taxa.

Maybe we should stop there and just see if there is agreement that is the case?
[/quote]
Maybe you should make a distinction between the effects of 'isolation' during the divergence of separate lines and the effects of that divergence.

The lines are reproductively 'isolated' after the divergence of the separate breeding pools after they have reached a point of difference where they can't breed.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

Or, we could venture into the matter just a little further before explaining more how isolation of subgroups is an essential aspect of Darwinian theory.

You could but so far your arguments are over simplified and mainly rhetorical in nature.

What about a population exposed to low levels of toxins, say by a volcanic ash? It can continue to breed with the population outside of the area effected by the ash, yet there is a chance that it will develop traits that are not shared by the general population.
Yes or no?

The origin of higher taxa from genera, family, order, kingdom, etc,....occurs under a Darwinian perspective in a sequential sense of a group splitting off into a new species eventually, and then another group from that evolving a new species, etc, etc,...the idea is eventually this process of speciation results in higher taxa.

Nope, you need to do some reading again, what evolutionary biologist is the last thirty years said that?

That's evolutionary theory.

Nope that is your assertion of what you think evolutionary theory says, you have not shown that it is actually part of the body of work about the theory.
Straw diversion 2

If some of you guys didn't realize that, you should know that's mainstream evo theory.

Where is that part of the modern academic theory, who said what where, I will give you a break, in the last thirty years. Who said that where.

You were wrong before.

It's not creationists or IDers making something up about evo theory. That's actually what Darwinism says happened.

You haven't shown that yet, now have you?

There is no continuum under Darwinism.

Outright false assertion, who said that where, huh.
Straw diversion3

There is separation and reproductive isolation of populations. If you have been taught otherwise and actually believe there is a continuum, that's kind of sad really.

So where are your sources?

Everyone knows, say, a cat cannot mate with a dog. Even a child knows that. There is no continuum as if all living, sexually reproducing creatures can still mate with one another. That's absolute lunacy.

Again what is the difference between the divergence of breeding populations and the effects of that divergence millions and millions of years later.

By definition, the origin of higher taxa via sequential speciation events involves isolation.

What definition, where?

When or it taking a very long time, etc, etc,.....does not change that. You can bring up anything you want but it doesn't change this fact. Sexually reproducing creatures are reproductively isolated from other species (with some exceptions depending on how you classify species) and from nearly all genera and all species in other families.

Of course, sexual or geographic isolation is not the "only tool" but is a requirement for the origin of higher taxa. Unfortunately, if something this basic isn't clear, it's likely useless to try to explain other more complicated concepts.

At this point I can start counting the assertion you have made with no evidence, you are throwing straw at a furious rate, creating false dichotomies and in general engaging in a low level rhetorical argument.

Please start with the demonstration of who said the ToE says what you say it does.
Then answer the question about sickle cell anemia.
Then answer the questions about the difference between divergence of a breeding population and the effects of that divergence.

 

[Wowbagger]

Ok, so you admit there should be a trend towards more complexity (genetic complexity), right?

In general, but there could be exceptions cropping up every now and then. That is why it is NOT a necessity.

Also, it depends on how you define "complexity". For now, my statements are general enough to apply to most applicable ones.

This is demonstrably false and shows a lack of understanding of the history evolutionary discoveries.

Oooo! Then demonstrate for me how I.D. applies to biology!!

All of your arguments and examples, so far, have not actually addressed I.D., yet. All you have done is deny this and that about evolution.

So, now is your chance to demonstrate how false I was! Bring on the history of discoveries made about the Intelligent Designer!!!

But in general, evos will do more studies than others because there are more of them and they control and limit the agenda to crowd out their critics.

So, you are appealing to conspiracy?

If I.D. was superior science, shouldn't it be beating evo to death with an onslaught of empirical findings?

If evo was such bad science, then how come they end up with success, instead of complete failures, all the time?

Show where the paper does that? I don't think you understand the question. It's not whether mutations can add beneficial genes, it's the issue of the loss of genes through subgroup isolation.

The papers discuss gene loss in a manner that is understood by evolutionary biologists, and empirically replicable.

Your line of questioning indicates an incomplete understanding of the science involved.

If I were to say the following, how would you react?

"Gravity has been explained by some experts as the theory about why things fall to the ground. But, it is clearly false! If Gravity were true, then there should be a giant cosmic floor, to which everything in the Universe is falling towards. How come we don't find evidence of that floor?!! How come Gravitationalists won't even address the issue?!!"​

And with that, you see how I feel, sometimes.

Genes changing over time doesn't address the issue by itself.

The more genes change, the less confidence that an Intelligent Designer is necessary to facilitate genetic change.

Unless you can show us where, when, how, or why an I.D. had to intervene, somewhere, you are NOT building a case for I.D. or Creationism. Instead you are nitpicking over details of natural processes.

I think it's weird that someone promoting Creationism would spend all of their energy discussing natural processes, than the very thing they are theorizing.

Even your "examples" of "predictions" made by I.D. point to natural processes instead of Intelligent intervention.

 

[Dinwar]

In general, but there could be exceptions cropping up every now and then. That is why it is NOT a necessity.

I disagree. There is no drive towards more complexity, either in genetic structure or in morphology. randman, like most Creationists/ID advocates, focuses on animals nearly to the exclusion of all else, and on big animals at that. If you look at the most complex things through time, sure, it'll give an apparence of increasing complexity. However, a more objective look, including all kingdoms and domains, does not. Morphologically our world is still dominated by bacteria and Archea--just about the simplest cells possible. I've already mentioned horse hooves. Parasites often show VERY marked simplification of bodyplans. I'm not up on genetics, but I would be very surprised to learn that bacteria have a highly complex genome.

Simply put, evolution favors what works right now. Sometimes that's increased complexity; sometimes it's increased simplicity. randman is attempting to equate "evolution" with "increased complexity" without evidence and without specifying under what conditions. That is no different than claiming "Ok, so you admit there should be a trend towards greater size, right?" or "Ok, so you admit there should be a trend towards becoming more green, right?" As soon as you remove the biase inherent in a discussion of "complexity" (ill-defined at best) this assertion degenerates into rediculousness if not supported by evidence. And randman cannot provide any.

Although some populations classified as species can and do mate successfully and produce reproducing species, but most don't among sexually reproducing organisms. The ones that do likely ought not to be called different species.

You don't get to dictate what is and is not a species. This is a MAJOR debate in biology, one which as far as I can see has no good answer, and your attempt to force us to accept the biological species concept is nothing more than a continued attempt to control the discussion to favor your conclusiono. In truth, there are numerous definitions. And you really need to look up circle species--the biological definition DOES NOT WORK. Not even among sexually reproducing organisms. Not even among animals.

 

[Wowbagger]

There is no drive towards more complexity, either in genetic structure or in morphology.

I did not say there was a "drive" towards more complexity, but that there was a general trend towards increasing complexity.

"Drive" would imply increase in complexity was a necessity for evolution. "Trend" implies that it happens to be a something we generally find as a consequence of an evolutionary process, but not always.

evolution favors what works right now. Sometimes that's increased complexity; sometimes it's increased simplicity.

I certainly agree with that.

But, historically, there will tend to be more complex organisms available as you go forward in time, than looking backwards in time.

That doesn't mean there won't be any cases of increased simplicity showing up, every now and then, of course.

 

[Dinwar]

I did not say there was a "drive" towards more complexity, but that there was a general trend towards increasing complexity.

What I'm arguing is that it's not much of a trend, and that the trend is only really promanent with the large, complex organisms. It's the Left-Hand Wall Rule--there's a hard lower limit of complexity, so any random motion will give the appearance of increased complexity.

I guess that's what I'm really getting at: Is this a trend we see for some functional reason, or is it a random function of some sort? I've discussed this with a number of paleontologists (it's fun to start conversations at supper that you know will cause food fights ) and the answer seems to be (along with "hurl the mashed potatoes") that our complexity is a random function when viewing life as a whole--or at least there's not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

That doesn't mean there won't be any cases of increased simplicity showing up, every now and then, of course.

This seems to imply that decreases in complexity will be abnormal, even rare. What I'm arguing is that we should see about as many decreases as increases in complexity--until you hit the lower limit increases and decreases are equivalent (assuming no selective pressure; if you throw in selective pressures this entire discussion is moot). It'd be like male and female in a human population--sure, one's going to be slightly more common the other, but the difference won't be significant.

 

[Wowbagger]

What I'm arguing is that it's not much of a trend, and that the trend is only really promanent with the large, complex organisms. It's the Left-Hand Wall Rule--there's a hard lower limit of complexity, so any random motion will give the appearance of increased complexity.

I can accept that.

The most important point is that any findings in the increase or decrease of complexity in life forms is not going to be an argument against Evolution. (either direction is still an evolutionary change).

And it is certainly not an argument for I.D. (there is no moment where an Intelligence would need to intervene).

randman has to make it clear why this issue is even important for his theory.

What I'm arguing is that we should see about as many decreases as increases in complexity--until you hit the lower limit increases and decreases are equivalent (assuming no selective pressure; if you throw in selective pressures this entire discussion is moot). It'd be like male and female in a human population--sure, one's going to be slightly more common the other, but the difference won't be significant.

Okay, I accept that as well.

Forgive me for trying to give randman some benefit of doubt.

 

[Dinwar]

Forgive me for trying to give randman some benefit of doubt.

No forgiveness necessary--you gave me an opening to discuss quantitative paleontology, a subject my current employment doesn't often offer an opportunity for. It's fun.

I agree that neither increases nor decreases in complexity is going to be an argument for an intelligent designer. Evolutionary change in general implies a lack of such a designer--at best it only leaves open the possibility of a fire-and-forget style designer, who built everything and then went away, or a gardener style designer, who takes what it finds and artificially selects for what it wants (which means it's just another selection pressure, which means it's still evolution).

 

[randman]

Yes, but the point is that the mechanisms of natural selection do not require isolation to change the occurrence of traits in a breeding population

So what?

Means absolutely nothing. Show me a breeding population that evolves into higher taxa and is still a breeding population. You cannot, and evo theory does not even predict or suggest that.

Case closed.

We're not going to get very far into the discussion until you recognize sequential speciation and isolation is the Darwinian process of evolving the higher taxa, and if you do not recognize that, there isn't much to talk about since you don't grasp even the simplest and most basic process envisioned by Darwinism to evolve the higher taxa.

 

[randman]

Yes, but the glaringly obvious point is that there is more to the ToE than speciation.

Iteration 2: Are the people who carry the sickle cell gene a separate species?

The fact you think the 2nd point is germane to a discussion on the evolution of the higher taxa suggests we have nothing more to talk about.

I am sorry but if you cannot understand sequential speciation is what Darwinism says is the process for the evolution of the higher taxa, there is nothing more to say. You just understand evo theory.

 

[randman]

I did not say there was a "drive" towards more complexity, but that there was a general trend towards increasing complexity.

Ok, why did you say and think that?

What is it about darwinism that suggests that?

Seems like from your discussion you are beginning to say there is no general trend. Also, we're talking GENETIC complexity not just morphological complexity.