Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Leaping Mt Improbable

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The study of 101 phylogenies reveals a new interpretation of speciation. Nature Vol 463 21 Jan 10 p349

The hypothesis that speciation follows the accumulation of many small events that multiply or simply add together (gradualism as Dawkins promotes) is supported in only 8% and 0% of cases.

78% of phylogenies fit the simple model where new species emerge from single rare stochastic events that produce reproductive isolation sufficient to cause speciation.

Species simply wait for the next sufficient cause of speciation to occur. Speciation is freed from the gradual tug of natural selection. There need not be an arms race between species. Gradual genetic and other changes may often be consequent to the event that promotes the reproductive isolation and hence speciation, rather than causal themselves. Factors that can cause speciation include polyploidy, altered sex determination mechanisms, chromosomal rearrangements, accumulation of genetic incompatibilities, sensory drive, hybridization and physical isolation.

It seems that the clever prose of Richard Dawkins demonstrating how easy it is to gradually scale Mt Improbable are simply not supported by the data.

Comments
I killed the thread! Maybe if I employed some logical fallacies I can get it going again: Anti-ID fallacies: 1. ID-ers are Christians therefore ID is religion and false. 2. If ID is true then why is there so much evidence for common descent huh? 3. The Earth is so old that anything could happen! 4. Humans are 98% ape. 5. But the computer program I designed proved that undirected processes can create irreducibly complex systems! Some anti-evolution fallacies. 1. Darwin said X, therefore current research on evolution is wrong. 2. Nothing complex can arise out of blind processes. 3. The human body is perfect, therefore it was designed.Collin
January 28, 2010
January
01
Jan
28
28
2010
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Cabal, I think that the people who make Timex are pretty smart. You cannot say that we cannot detect design in nature simply because that design is not optimal. This is simply an unfair road block you are attempting to place in the way of people who are trying to detect design. You hope that since most ID-ers are theists that by insulting the design of the Person they believe is the designer, then they will get discouraged and give up their project. Even if theists are wrong and God is not the designer, their work may yield very interesting fruit that can increase our knowledge of the universe.Collin
January 27, 2010
January
01
Jan
27
27
2010
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
Prof. Macneill said in 4: "Finally, the list of processes that cause phylogenetic differentiation – polyploidy, altered sex determination mechanisms, chromosomal rearrangements, accumulation of genetic incompatibilities, sensory drive, hybridization and physical (i.e. geographical) isolation – is a nice summary of the mechanisms of macroevolution, and are fully compatible with the “modern evolutionary synthesis”." Thank you for good analysis of where the data points atm. Could you however provide me/us with articles that demonstrate the validity of these processes in rigorous information theoretic format or perspective?Innerbling
January 27, 2010
January
01
Jan
27
27
2010
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
jerry,
Not quite something you would think would develop through natural selection but easily within an ID scenario of a very intelligent designer.
I believe human intelligence would be sufficient, but nothing like humans would be able to sustain evolution over 3.6 billion years. Why not replace the "very intelligent designer" with the more meaningful "God as research, design and manufacturing agent"? I don't think the designer can be all that intelligent. Why go for Timex when you can have Rolex? I am not convinced by arguments like "We cannot know why he made Timex instead of Rolex. He had his own reasons for doing it that way."Cabal
January 27, 2010
January
01
Jan
27
27
2010
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
From reading his work, I think Dawkins presents arguments equivalent to the summary below. " Macroevolutionary processes are just the vector sum of microevolutionary processes in conjunction with large scale changes in geology and the environment " Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life. The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_48idnet.com.au
January 27, 2010
January
01
Jan
27
27
2010
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT
In my opinion, calling this evidence against gradualism is playing word games. The only logical evidence against gradualism would be evidence for saltation, which is by definition the only alternative. (Punk-eek is just another form of grad.) Yet even UD is not presenting this study as saltation evidence.
Factors that can cause speciation include polyploidy, altered sex determination mechanisms, chromosomal rearrangements, accumulation of genetic incompatibilities, sensory drive, hybridization and physical isolation.
Put them together and they spell D-E-S-I-G-N … ? Or maybe just "a couple more mechanisms than Chuck Darwin knew about."Lenoxus
January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
Allen, that's not what Allen said, it is what I said. He said something about sterility is not inheritable and what you see above is my reply. sorry.Collin
January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
Allen,
I do love clear reasoning. I hope that nobody is going to disagree with you. Actually I will challenge you with this highly scientific article about a steril being reproducing himself. http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Lal By the way, what do Quaker's believe? Sorry if that is off topic.
Collin
January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
Mr Jerry, And what causes the precise placement of the various chemicals in the egg cell? I can recommend to you the book, Coming to Life, by Christiane Nusslein-Volhard. She is a Nobel Prize winner for her research on development. Most of the book (which is small) talks about the fly as a model organism, but differences with other organisms such as sea urchins, C. elegans and man are touched upon.Nakashima
January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Allen, I very often enjoy your comments as they are educational as I like those of the others who talked about the Red Queen's hypothesis. But you said nothing that is in dispute with ID. Do you realize that? Do you think Dembski, Behe or Meyers would said, "no, that it not true or feasible for anything you said above." I would be interested in what you think you said if anything that is ID unfriendly. In your comment "This is technically the subject matter of microevolutionary theory, and is the source of most of the disagreement between evolutionary biologists and ID supporters." I believe that "disagreement" should be replaced by "misunderstanding."jerry
January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
"Really? I won’t spoil the fun of discovery for you but I sincerely believe you are dead wrong there and may be in for some surprises whenever you decide to learn some embryology." Yes, I was summarizing Dawkins' position and said it seemed incredible. What I was looking for is someone who could support Dawkins' thesis. And for Allen, I have read Sean Carroll's book and found it in complete sync with ID. I saw nothing in it that would upset ID. In fact, in one page and I don't know the exact page but it is on human evolution, he says the mechanisms for making a human would take about 10,000 pages of small print. Not quite something you would think would develop through natural selection but easily within an ID scenario of a very intelligent designer.jerry
January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Cabal, jerry was summarizing Dawkins' hypothesis.tragic mishap
January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
As for the Red Queen Hypothesis, there are at least three such hypotheses. Each involves a coevolutionary “arms race” in which evolutionary changes in one group of organisms results in a corresponding change in a related group of organisms (as happens between predators and their prey).
Actually, Allen, Van Valen's original hypothesis wasn't about coevolution - he just argued that fitness doesn't increase (or, to be more exact, that extinction rate doesn't decrease) - he acknowledged that there could be a lot of reasons for this (including coevolution). The Red Queen was only hitched to coevolution later. Oh and for the pedants, Van Valen called it The Red Queen's hypothesis.Heinrich
January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
jerry,
What determines cell types, their placement and order in an organism is nothing more than the distribution of the various chemicals in the initial cell.
Really? I won't spoil the fun of discovery for you but I sincerely believe you are dead wrong there and may be in for some surprises whenever you decide to learn some embryology.Cabal
January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
Jerry, ‘Red Queen hypothesis’ This is used as an analogy in reference to the scene of the Alice in Wonderland where Alice is sprinting as fast as she can while the Red Queen is doing the same to keep up & catch her. As it’s used in biology it would serve to explain how two or more species where either they’re in a symbiotic relationship & rely on each other or in which one species preys on another (Cheetah & Gazelle) are in a generational speed race in which invariable each group of the population effectively is pushing the desired phenotypes in the other species. ‘how these genetic changes could spread so quickly in a population would so obviously be impossible’ The article mentioned some of the factors which cause speciation. This speed of genetic changes in a population is contingent on many factors. Examples: the current population size, the reproduction & maturity rates, & what possible new phenotypes that could be selected are favored different given the unique environment. For instance, with larger populations, depending on the selective benefit of a new trait, traits take a longer time to propagate through the population as opposed to with a smaller population (like a founder population).agentorange
January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
The original post confuses the origin of species with the origin of evolutionary adaptations, a very common and widespread confusion among the general public and both evolutionary biologists and ID supporters. Dawkins' book, Climbing Mount Improbable (from which the title of the OP was derived) is almost entirely about the origin of adaptations by means of natural selection. This is technically the subject matter of microevolutionary theory, and is the source of most of the disagreement between evolutionary biologists and ID supporters. By contrast, the origin of species (technically macroevolution) is a completely different process altogether, and one that does not necessarily depend on natural selection at all. Indeed, Darwin himself made this clear in the Origin of Species, in which he pointed out that species become differentiated from each other as the result of increasing degrees of hybrid sterility, but that natural selection could not possibly favor any process that resulted in increasing degrees of hybrid sterility. After all, it seems pretty clear that sterility cannot itself be inherited, at least not directly from parents to offspring. The paper referred to in the OP is about the origin of reproductively isolated phylogenetic lines (i.e. "species"), and points out that there is increasing evidence that this process (technically "cladogenesis") is the result of genetic changes that are relatively discontinuous, rather than gradual/incremental. This is a very interesting finding, as it tends to support Eldridge and Gould's model of punctuated equilibrium rather than what is sometimes referred to as "phyletic gradualism". However, it in no way contradicts the overall assumption that evolution has occurred nor that it requires anything except purely "natural" (i.e. non-foresighted) processes. This is what the term "stochastic" means in the OP. Finally, the list of processes that cause phylogenetic differentiation – polyploidy, altered sex determination mechanisms, chromosomal rearrangements, accumulation of genetic incompatibilities, sensory drive, hybridization and physical (i.e. geographical) isolation – is a nice summary of the mechanisms of macroevolution, and are fully compatible with the "modern evolutionary synthesis". What is still not resolved is not whether either microevolution or macroevolution have occurred (there is abundant empirical evidence for both) nor about the mechanisms for these processes, but whether the tempo and mode (to use G. G. Simpson's famous terminology) of both processes is continuous/gradual or discontinuous/episodic. There is increasing evidence (both empirical and theoretical) that both micro- and macroevolution are more often discontinuous/episodic, and there is a great deal of research currently underway to determine how the underlying genetic, developmental, and ecological processes affect the dynamics of micro- and macroevolutionary change.Allen_MacNeill
January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
In comment #1 jerry asked:
"...what causes the precise placement of the various chemicals in the egg cell?"
I strongly recommend Sean Carrol's book, Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo, in which this question and many, many others relating to cellular and organismal development in animals are explored and explained. As for the Red Queen Hypothesis, there are at least three such hypotheses. Each involves a coevolutionary "arms race" in which evolutionary changes in one group of organisms results in a corresponding change in a related group of organisms (as happens between predators and their prey). This can happen at several levels, both within (microevolution) and between (macroevolution) species. For a reasonably good overview of the various Red Queen Hypotheses, I recommend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_queen_hypothesis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_arms_race Personally (both as a behavioral ecologist and as a Quaker), I prefer the term "coevolutionary spiral" to "evolutionary arms race", as the latter is prone to the same interpretation as Tennyson's "nature red in tooth and claw" characterization of natural selection. As Darwin took great pains to point out, the "struggle for existence" that provides the ecological context for natural selection is usually not an "armed" struggle involving organisms fighting and killing each other. On the contrary, it is usually a struggle between organisms and their environment, in which limiting factors such as availability of sunlight (for plants), nutrients, space, mates, etc. result in differential reproductive success, rather than injury or death.Allen_MacNeill
January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
I am not sure just what this study is saying other than gradualism didn't do it since I have access to only the abstract which does not tell one much. I can see how populations can get separated by the events described but it still begs the question of how did the new information arise for major changes. But while it is obvious that gradualism never did much I recommend the latest work by the High Prince of Gradualism. That is I highly recommend Dawkins new book (over 2/3 through it at moment) for what it does not reveal and many of the interesting topics it discusses. That there is any evidence for the building of complex novelties is the thing it does not reveal. It is a book full of interesting ideas and I have no clue how much of what he speculates on actually happened but it does not challenge ID though I think he seems to think it does. Like many others he does not understand ID and constantly rails against young earth advocates. Three weeks ago we saw Hart's review of Dawkins book and it was glowing and in it Hart said it dispelled ID but and it main concept of irreducible complexity. It does not even come close to challenging ID. A couple side points. First, the Red Queen hypothesis. I never really understood it. It always seemed silly that anyone would believe it because evolution takes place through genetic changes and how these genetic changes could spread so quickly in a population would so obviously be impossible. Also if we all looked like we were standing still but actually changing dramatically then it would show up some how as all don't change at the same rate or separate populations would change differently and the comparisons obvious. How it gets considered in a science publication is beyond me. For humans we are eating better, getting better pre natal care and thus, are getting taller but that is not evolution. Second, in Dawkins book there is a long chapter on embryology and the thesis of it is one I never saw before. He says there are no instruction for the sequence of events leading to the unfolding of the body plan in the genome and that all is contained in the uneven distribution of chemicals in each cell as they divide. He gives no references except for some work done on worms. But essentially each cells fate at every moment during gestation is determined by the forces that neighboring cells and chemical imbalances have on it. What determines cell types, their placement and order in an organism is nothing more than the distribution of the various chemicals in the initial cell. I find this hard to accept since there is such precise placement latter in an embryo that it would seem like little perturbations at the beginning would become more magnified as time went on. And what causes the precise placement of the various chemicals in the egg cell?jerry
January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
Does it mean you accept the fact that speciation occurs?CharlesJ
January 26, 2010
January
01
Jan
26
26
2010
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply