What prevents macro-evolution?

[PatKelley]

Ah, so then more evidence.

My apologies, I thought I'd responded to this commentary, but checking back my post seems to have disappeared (ahem...) I take it this is the second commentary you refer to?

Quote 1 - doesn't refer to ID, so I don't see how it can be used to argue that ID prevents macroevolution.

Except, although as you check quote 2 and its source, you did not check that this is from the New Mexico Intelligent Design Network...and it's not about intelligent design? It establishes the arguments used, here by self-admitted ID proponents, to provide a case against macroevolution specifically, defined as part of darwinian doctrine.

Quote 2 - this is from Scott Thile, a Piano and Instrument Technician, is there a reason you regard him as an authority on ID. Even if there is a reason, there is nothing in the quote which says ID prevents macroevolution.

Within the paper, Dr. Dudley Eirich, a microbiologist, ID proponent, and a former theistic evolutionist is quoted:

"According to evolutionary theory, any component, which doesn't offer an advantage to an organism, i.e. doesn't function, will be lost or discarded. How such a structure [as the flagellum] could have evolved in a gradual, step-by-step process as required by classical Darwinian evolution is an insurmountable obstacle to evolutionists"

That appears to be a rather blatant assault on evolutionary theory stating that irreducible complexity, the crux of the ID argument, is equally an impediment to evolution. As ID claims to support microevolution, one can only assume they refer to the remainder of Darwinian doctrine; macroevolution.
Until I am shown otherwise, I do not yet recognize a specific degree requirement to discuss, critique, explain or endorse ID. Please, if a PhIDD exists, enlighten me.

Quote 3 - this appears to argue exactly opposite of your claim. It is microevolution per se which constrains macroevolution, ID relaxes, indeed permits macroevolution in ways which microevolution wouldn't allow.

No, it specifically states "ID claims that at least in some cases no such sequence is possible" referring to transitional forms. It is specifically ID that is setting up the obstacle to intermediate forms as not "possible."

I'm not sure I follow your final points. Perhaps you could simplify them for me a bit?

Thanks

Here's the simple answer: in no wise, in any of my findings regarding dissertations discussions and descriptions of ID and evolution did I find an addressing of macroevolution other than as a "failed" theory of Darwinian evolution, addressed from the standpoint of Intelligent Design.

 

[fishbob]

On a lighter note, it would appear that I did unearth some other arguments in ID against "macroevolution" specifically besides the old chestnut of intermediate forms not being equipped to survive.

There is the "information theory" approach, which posits that in a decaying system (a description of genetics subject to mutation) no information can be added through the error producing mechanism. In other words, asking for new information in evolution would be like asking for ice to form in warm water: while it is technically possible, it is so unlikely as to be ludicrous. This is not a valid argument, but it represents a summation of one of the information based arguments.

Probability based arguments exist as well, arguing for an astronomically unlikely series of events having to occur (and in this way they are kind of a new incarnation of unfit intermediates) resulting in the idea of irreduceable complexity. It's odd, but until this conversation I hadn't realized that "irreduceable complexity" was just the same old chestnut served up in a pie.

1 - So far, nobody has defined what exactly is meant by 'macroevolution'. So far, nobody has presented evidence in support of whatever the hypothesized macroevolution is supposed to be.

2 - The information theory approach to evolution is flawed - based on a strawman concept of evolution.

3 - Probability based arguments attack evolution based on mischaracterization or misunderstanding of natural selection.

 

[UrsulaV]

So, without getting into the previous going debate, I'll just ask, flat out, and as politely as possible:

Will someone who either believes or respects ID please offer li'l ol me several examples of positive predictions made by ID? Stuff that would follow from there being an intelligent designer and not from natural selection that we could then look for in the field?

I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm not saying you have to do it, I'm not waving any burdens of proof, I'm not accusing anybody of anything, I'm just asking, nicely, please--can anyone who follows ID please offer several such testable positive predictions?

And if you can't do so, can you tell me why you won't, even if it's just "I don't feel like it!" or "I can't be bothered," or "You're just a tool of the Darwinian establishment," please?

That's all I ask. You don't have to do it. Seems like the previous bit derailed into "who had to do what" and who had the burden of proof. So I'll say, plainly, that there's no earthly reason you should have to prove yourself to me. Nobody is obligated to answer my question except from their basic decency as a human being towards the curious. That's all I ask. Please.

Thank you.

 

[.13.]

There is the "information theory" approach, which posits that in a decaying system (a description of genetics subject to mutation) no information can be added through the error producing mechanism. In other words, asking for new information in evolution would be like asking for ice to form in warm water: while it is technically possible, it is so unlikely as to be ludicrous. This is not a valid argument, but it represents a summation of one of the information based arguments.

I'm not familiar with information theory. But this raised a question:
Wouldn't the error producing mechanisms add information when there is more information attached to existing gene?

Crude analogy:
We have a 'tree'. Then random error occurs and 'h' gets inserted into 'tree' givin 'three'.

Or have I misunderstood ID's information argument?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

A combination of error-producing mutations and selection can decrease the uncertainty of a DNA sequence and thus increase its information content. The selection process is required to gain information.

If you want to play with a simulation of this, I humbly recommend:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/papers/ev/evj/

~~ Paul

 

[Iamme]

Did oxygen, water, gold and diamonds "macro" evolve from hydrogen gas?

I have been laying awake at night pondering this as to figure out that if THAT can happen...that perhaps organic macro evolution can occur as well.

But I am currently stuck on the accepted fact that if this is purportedly true and proven, scientifically...still asking myself that if that is true...what forces enabled this to be true without any kind of guiding mind behind these processees. As in... was it also just chance that allowed the laws of atomic structure, gravity and electro-magnetism to randomly take place?

As far as the argument that there is no evidence of missing links, I am often watching the animal planet and they will show something, like..the other day they showed the skull of some named animal, like a gazele or soemthing, and I remember saying, "Why that looks like the head of a horse!" There are a lot of species of animals that do resemble other species. So what is this big problem about there not being any missing links. THAT argument I could never understand.

...............................


But now you guys are probably confused. You probably don't know which side of the fence I am coming from. Like I have said before...I am a truth seeker. I will listen to all sides of the argument. Hopefuly there will be more years on earth to try to figure out this riddle of all riddles.

This morning I was thinking about what evolutionary cause could have made an organism evolve from a single cell replicator of itself, to make 2 separate creatures that would have to come together to procreate. What mutating or other forces could have caused this? (I suppose I could easily find this through Google, in seconds, I suppose you are going to tell me. ). To me, this is the most vexing of the evolutionary questions. More so than the eye. More so than birds getting wings/flight...as the procreation between 2 separate creatures requires that one has to know about the other. What is the mechanism at work that could recognize that one creature has to have one organ and another creature has to have this other organ, so that the two fit together (there is no almost here, as either this process works or it doesn't!. You don't sort of slowly have an almost pregnancy!).. and produce the seperate ingredients in their bodies to make the procreation process work. Is this another idiotic thought?

 

[PatKelley]

Did oxygen, water, gold and diamonds "macro" evolve from hydrogen gas?

I have been laying awake at night pondering this as to figure out that if THAT can happen...that perhaps organic macro evolution can occur as well.

But I am currently stuck on the accepted fact that if this is purportedly true and proven, scientifically...still asking myself that if that is true...what forces enabled this to be true without any kind of guiding mind behind these processees. As in... was it also just chance that allowed the laws of atomic structure, gravity and electro-magnetism to randomly take place?

As far as the argument that there is no evidence of missing links, I am often watching the animal planet and they will show something, like..the other day they showed the skull of some named animal, like a gazele or soemthing, and I remember saying, "Why that looks like the head of a horse!" There are a lot of species of animals that do resemble other species. So what is this big problem about there not being any missing links. THAT argument I could never understand.

...............................


But now you guys are probably confused. You probably don't know which side of the fence I am coming from. Like I have said before...I am a truth seeker. I will listen to all sides of the argument. Hopefuly there will be more years on earth to try to figure out this riddle of all riddles.

This morning I was thinking about what evolutionary cause could have made an organism evolve from a single cell replicator of itself, to make 2 separate creatures that would have to come together to procreate. What mutating or other forces could have caused this? (I suppose I could easily find this through Google, in seconds, I suppose you are going to tell me. ). To me, this is the most vexing of the evolutionary questions. More so than the eye. More so than birds getting wings/flight...as the procreation between 2 separate creatures requires that one has to know about the other. What is the mechanism at work that could recognize that one creature has to have one organ and another creature has to have this other organ, so that the two fit together (there is no almost here, as either this process works or it doesn't!. You don't sort of slowly have an almost pregnancy!).. and produce the seperate ingredients in their bodies to make the procreation process work. Is this another idiotic thought?

The first information exchange within a population was in plasmids. These are rings of DNA with information encoding that can be exchanged and/or absorbed from other single-celled organisms. It doesn't even have to be the same species; as resistance to antibiotics can be conferred between separate bacterial populations with plasmid exchange. Since the single-celled organism is both the somatic and germ cell line, any DNA exchange affects both expression and fitness of the parent as well as the offspring. A more formal exchange of micronuclei takes place in paramecia, which could be seen as the first sexual reproduction. As cells became specialized in a population to do different jobs, the germ cells were the only ones that could perform the fusion and information exchange necessary to incorporate another cells attributes, or half of them at least. The increased rate of mutation that this confers to otherwise large somatic organisms allows for mutation distribution at a rate faster than somatic organism division, and keeps the exchange simple and straightforward, allowing for a faster rate of mutation to become distributed through a population in a shorter period of time in larger organisms.

The first sexual organisms essentially had both sets of gametes and were hermaphroditic; sexual specialization is a later development, and the bifurcation of these roles is subtle in some species, and rather profound in others (the deep-sea anglerfish being an excellent example of a profound difference in male and female...), however the ability to influence this process through such effects as hormones or even temperature change argues for sexual specialization as a later development.

Just so you know, the breakthroughs in animal structure come with the advent of repetition of modular sequences, whether simply an increase in population allowing for specialization (Man O' War jellyfish, sponges, and so on) to body segment repetition allowing for modular specialization (worms and arrow-worms with redundant body segments that could be modularized and specialized, or radial organisms that develop asymmetries or specialization).

 

[PatKelley]

1 - So far, nobody has defined what exactly is meant by 'macroevolution'. So far, nobody has presented evidence in support of whatever the hypothesized macroevolution is supposed to be.

2 - The information theory approach to evolution is flawed - based on a strawman concept of evolution.

3 - Probability based arguments attack evolution based on mischaracterization or misunderstanding of natural selection.

Please read the thread. Several times, I have provided the ID definition of macroevolution, which is the "doctrine" that microevolution changes can add up to speciation and all of the biodiversity that we observe, which ID rejects. As it is a distinction that is only made by ID, and is then refuted by ID, it really doesn't truly represent any real arguments in evolutionary mechanisms. I am not arguing for the terminology in either sense, but ID proponents establish an artificial bifurcation of changes within a species and changes at levels higher than species (changes that led to the distribution of organisms defined in a genus, family, order, class, and so on). Cladistic diagrams for them do not extend actual relationships of descent from common ancestors but only represent current population descriptions of organisms that arose spontaneously at some pont in the past.

 

[Crispy Duck]

Sorry the "evolutiondidit" doesn't wash That 'etc' after 'selection' hides an awful lot of hidden requirements before you can say speciation 'just happens' as a result of mutation, selection etc.

The ID claim is not just that a '"different mechanism" is needed', it is that a different mechanism in actual fact operated. It is about the history of life on earth. There was nothing stopping DNA-based replicators' behaviour following that of any generic system of replicators, the claim is simply that this did not happen.

This sums up and confirms the emptiness of ID "theory" for me, so this thread has served its purpose. Sphenisc - you seem to be arguing that unadulterated evolution is perfectly capable of explaining the diversity of life on Earth, but that throwing an intelligent designer into the mix is necessary anyway. Game over.

I'd be interested to hear what you believe the "awful lot of hidden requirements" for speciation might comprise. As soon as you accept that micro-evolution happens, that a population's average characteristics will drift over time, speciation is totally inevitable. All that is required is that two initially similar populations become isolated (perhaps an isthmus floods, separating two land masses); both populations will continue to drift, but there is no mechanism requiring them to both drift in the same direction. After some number of generations (tens, hundreds?), the two populations will have diverged sufficiently that we would consider them different species. ID must propose a mechanism preventing such divergent drift, but it does not. Without such a mechanism, sending out search parties looking for examples of irreducible complexity is premature.

I'm genuinely interested to know - is this argument as blindingly obvious to anyone else as it is to me? To anyone who doesn't believe speciation could happen as above - do you agree that the above mechanism is reasonable, in a generic system of replicators? If not, why not? And if yes, why would this process not occur amongst DNA-based populations?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm genuinely interested to know - is this argument as blindingly obvious to anyone else as it is to me? To anyone who doesn't believe speciation could happen as above - do you agree that the above mechanism is reasonable, in a generic system of replicators? If not, why not? And if yes, why would this process not occur amongst DNA-based populations?

I think the speciation argument may be slipping out of the ID paradigm. After all, as you say, it doesn't take all that much for two populations to become unable to interbreed. Anyway, many biologists define species as two population that do not interbreed, as opposed to cannot interbreed.

The macroevolution argument may now be one of gross characteristic change. "It's not possible to grow hands on a snake." This fits better with the irreducible complexity argument anyway. First pick an IC mechanism and then claim it can't grow on some unrelated animal: Trees can't grow eyes, you know! Two impossibilities rolled into one example.

~~ Paul

 

[Rasmus]

Trees can't grow eyes, you know!

Do we even know that? Granted, trees don't often do grow eyes - but it makes me wonder if they could.

I guess it is impracible to run an experiment with trees; but would it be possible to evolve a bacteria into a worm or something?

All it would take is time and effort and - of course - tons of money. Pick any bacteria you like, and let it breed. Check the DNA of whatever results you get and select those that are closer to known WORM-DNA to continue the experiment.

I know it's not how things really went, since both the bacteria and worm that we have to start with will have an unknown ancestry - but could this work? And how long would it take?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Do we even know that? Granted, trees don't often do grow eyes - but it makes me wonder if they could.

For a true eye, you need a nervous system. I don't know of any trees that've developed one of those. But most plants have light-sensitive cells, and some have mechanisms that respond to the direction of the light source, so I suppose hypothetically a tree could grow a flora version of an eye.

I guess it is impracible to run an experiment with trees; but would it be possible to evolve a bacteria into a worm or something?

All it would take is time and effort and - of course - tons of money. Pick any bacteria you like, and let it breed. Check the DNA of whatever results you get and select those that are closer to known WORM-DNA to continue the experiment.

I know it's not how things really went, since both the bacteria and worm that we have to start with will have an unknown ancestry - but could this work? And how long would it take?

It would probably take a looooong time, and to go specifically from a bacteria to a worm would be near impossible. The great majority of time since life began was populated by single-cell critters. There's no guarantee that you'd be able to get the bacteria to develop the necessary "glue" to make the transition to a multicellular form, and even less guarantee that you could push it to a worm-y form.

It would be a better experiment (although still prohibitively expensive and time-consuming) to start with a population of some multi-cell critter, split it into two or more sub-groups, apply a different set of selection pressures to each sub-group, and see if you end up with indisputably distinct variations of form and function.

Fortunately, nature's already done this for us.

 

[Iamme]

Could the Venus fly trap be a missing link, of sorts? Aren't there mechanisms going on with this plant that most normal plants don't possess? (As an aside: Do bees get eaten when trying to polinate them? )

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's not a missing link, because it's not missing.

http://biomechanics.bio.uci.edu/_html/nh_biomech/flytrap/flytrap.htm

~~ Paul

 

[Iamme]

Thanks for the link. I read it.

And yes. HA. You're right. It's not 'missing'. Ha. How stupicd of me. Maybe we should just say it is a 'link', then.

 

[burrahobbit]

IC/ID as I see it makes one point. The chance of the correct sequence of events -- current apex us -- happening is infinitesimally small.

Sorry for going back a page.

The real reason for ID is illustrated by this quote(emphasis mine)

Hammegk, there is no correct sequence of events. There is only a sequence of events that happens to have taken place. If you had gone back to the beginning and predicted that humans would evolve and then come back to find humans, then the probability would have been truly infinitesimally small. As it is, the argument from probability is worthless.

Apologies for excursion into elementary probability theory.

 

[Rasmus]

It would probably take a looooong time, and to go specifically from a bacteria to a worm would be near impossible.

Would it really be?

There *should* be a line of evolution that does indeed connect to the bacteria and the worm - trace back their ancestry over the past few million years or so and they should be linked.

The great majority of time since life began was populated by single-cell critters. There's no guarantee that you'd be able to get the bacteria to develop the necessary "glue" to make the transition to a multicellular form, and even less guarantee that you could push it to a worm-y form.

Well, obviously no guarantees; but I was thinking that if you kept breeding those mutations that were somewhat closer to the worm than the original bacteria you would eventually end up with the worm. (Assuming, of course, that it is possible ot evolve i na rather direct line; which might well not be the case.) But you could pick other species to try the experiment - breed a fish into a frog or something.

It would be a better experiment (although still prohibitively expensive and time-consuming) to start with a population of some multi-cell critter, split it into two or more sub-groups, apply a different set of selection pressures to each sub-group, and see if you end up with indisputably distinct variations of form and function.

True.

Frankly, I am just constantly annyed by the challenge of "breed me a man from an ape" that get's thrown around by just too many fundies. And I was thinmking if it would be possible to do that just for the hell of it.

Mind you, even someone was going to do it, it would only prove that evolution is possible (big news there, eh?) and not thatit ever happened; failure to do so wouldn't prove a thing - other than that my idea was probably a bit on the silly side of things.

Fortunately, nature's already done this for us.

Indeed.

Rasmus.

 

[sphenisc]

This sums up and confirms the emptiness of ID "theory" for me, so this thread has served its purpose. Sphenisc - you seem to be arguing that unadulterated evolution is perfectly capable of explaining the diversity of life on Earth, but that throwing an intelligent designer into the mix is necessary anyway. Game over.

I'd be interested to hear what you believe the "awful lot of hidden requirements" for speciation might comprise. As soon as you accept that micro-evolution happens, that a population's average characteristics will drift over time, speciation is totally inevitable. All that is required is that two initially similar populations become isolated (perhaps an isthmus floods, separating two land masses); both populations will continue to drift, but there is no mechanism requiring them to both drift in the same direction. After some number of generations (tens, hundreds?), the two populations will have diverged sufficiently that we would consider them different species. ID must propose a mechanism preventing such divergent drift, but it does not. Without such a mechanism, sending out search parties looking for examples of irreducible complexity is premature.

I'm genuinely interested to know - is this argument as blindingly obvious to anyone else as it is to me? To anyone who doesn't believe speciation could happen as above - do you agree that the above mechanism is reasonable, in a generic system of replicators? If not, why not? And if yes, why would this process not occur amongst DNA-based populations?

Thanks Crispy Duck, then my work here is done... (BTW My list would be pretty similar to list you provide in addition to mutation, selection.)

 

[Soapy Sam]

Evolution is evolution. "Micro " and "macro" have no useful significance that I can see. The concepts add nothing of value.
Individual creatures are subject to environmental pressures. Relative breeding success leads to redistribution of genetic varieties. Changed allelle ratios respond to environmental changes through physical or behavioural change in individuals, which affects populations, which affect habitats, which are part of the environment, which feeds back into individual success. Evolution occurs at every level from the DNA molecule through the organism, population and habitat.There is feedback at every level. Of course each level has different characters.One may study the eviolution of a species, so long as one keeps in mind that a species is what we define it to be and no more. Whether two populations can interbreed for instance, is wholly irrelevant. What matters is whether they do or do not.

Paul- a point worth noting- Not only are there areas (volumes??) in adaptive hyperspace which are inaccessible, but there appear to be preferred tracks as well- routes which are favoured by chemistry or thermodynamics for instance. All photosynthetic systems have common elements for example. Parallel evolution, at every level from the molecular to body shape, is an abundant phenomenon.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Then maybe strange attractors aren't irrelevant. When an evolutionary trajectory gets near certain preferred trajectories, it snaps to the preferred trajectory?

~~ Paul