Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Professor James M. Tour, who is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world, has been publicly criticized for forthrightly declaring in an online essay that while microevolution (or small changes within a species) is well-understood by scientists, there is no scientist alive today who understands how macroevolution is supposed to work, at a chemical level:

I do have scientific problems understanding macroevolution as it is usually presented. I simply can not accept it as unreservedly as many of my scientist colleagues do, although I sincerely respect them as scientists. Some of them seem to have little trouble embracing many of evolution’s proposals based upon (or in spite of) archeological, mathematical, biochemical and astrophysical suggestions and evidence, and yet few are experts in all of those areas, or even just two of them. Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

“From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution. The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution….

I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? Furthermore, when I, a non-conformist, ask proponents for clarification, they get flustered in public and confessional in private wherein they sheepishly confess that they really don’t understand either. Well, that is all I am saying: I do not understand. But I am saying it publicly as opposed to privately. Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution?

A Layman’s Reflections on Evolution and Creation. An Insider’s View of the Academy.

In response, evolutionary biologist Nick Matzke has accused Professor Tour of being fundamentally ignorant about evolution. According to Matzke, the very idea that “explaining macroevolution is a matter of ‘chemistry’” is a “bizarre, naive, and confused idea.”

Before making his remarks, Matzke might have read benefited from reading a 1996 essay by biochemist and Intelligent Design proponent Professor Michael Behe, entitled, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference. After a detailed discussion of the biochemistry of vertebrate vision (which is illustrated in the above diagram of the visual cycle), Behe concludes:

In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an ‘evolutionary explanation’ of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant. So is the fossil record. It does not matter whether or not the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory, any more than it mattered in physics that Newton’s theory was consistent with everyday experience. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about, say, whether or how the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, or of population genetics, or the explanations that evolutionary theory has given for rudimentary organs or species abundance.

The point which Professor Behe makes for vision applies equally to macroevolution as a whole. The relevant steps in macroevolutionary processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of macroevolution must include a molecular explanation. Note that Behe is not saying here that biological processes are reducible to molecular chemistry: rather, he is saying that they must include a discussion of molecular chemistry.

Likewise, when Professor Tour publicly declares that no scientist alive today understands the chemical details behind macroevolution, he is not espousing the naïve reductionist line that “explaining macroevolution is a matter of ‘chemistry’”; rather, he is simply pointing out that in order to properly assess the feasibility of Darwinian macroevolution as a theory, we have to ascertain whether it is chemically feasible. If, for some reason, certain macroevolutionary transitions appear to be highly improbable from a chemical standpoint, then that in itself is a good reason to be skeptical of the view that Darwin’s theory of evolution is an all-inclusive theory of biology.

I should like to add that Professor Tour is not an Intelligent Design proponent; he is simply a Darwin skeptic.

In this post, I’d like to discuss macroevolution and revisit the question: “Is skepticism about macroevolution reasonable?”

What is Macroevolution? Some definitions

Before we go any further, however, I’d like to clarify exactly what macroevolution is, by quoting a few definitions from acknowledged experts in the field, for the benefit of readers who (like myself) are not scientists.

Most standard scientific references define macroevolution as evolution “at or beyond the species level,” in the words of Dr. Douglas Theobald, author of 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. As such, macroevolution consists of changes that occur over the long-term. Macroevolution is defined in contrast with microevolution, which occurs within a species and is defined as “the short-term changes in a population’s gene pool” (Purves W. K., Orians G. H., & Heller H. C., Life: The Science of Biology, 1992, 3rd Edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc., W. H. Freeman and Company, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA, p. 418).

Macroevolution has also been defined by Professor Jerry Coyne as “large changes in body form or the evolution of one type of plant or animal from another type” (Why Evolution Is True. 2009. Oxford University Press, Glossary, pp. 268-269).

Finally, the term “macroevolution” refers to “evolutionary processes that work across separated gene pools,” whereas the term “microevolution” refers to “evolutionary processes within gene pools, such as the origin and spread of individual gene variants” (Matzke, Nicholas J., and Gross, Paul R. 2006. “Analyzing Critical Analysis: The Fallback Antievolutionist Strategy.” Chapter 2 of Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for Our Schools. Scott, E., and Branch, G., eds., Beacon Press, pp. 49-50, italics mine – VJT.)

The following definitions of macroevolution (many of which were retrieved by Mung, Optimus, and other assiduous Uncommon Descent readers) are fairly representative of the scientific literature:

“In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).”

– Theobald, Douglas L. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

Evolutionary change occurs on different scales: ‘microevolution’ is generally equated with events at or below the species level whereas ‘macroevolution’ is change above the species level, including the formation of species. A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).

– Carroll, Sean B. 2001 (Feb 8). Nature 409:669.
(Cited by high-school science teacher, creationist and former atheist Richard Peachey here.)

Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale – what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction.”

Definition of “Macroevolution” at Berkeley University’s “Understanding Evolution” Website.

The short-term changes in a population’s gene pool… are often called microevolution. Microevolutionary studies are an important part of evolutionary biology because short-term changes can be observed directly and subjected to experimental manipulations. Studies of short-term changes reveal much about evolution, but by themselves they cannot provide a complete explanation of the long-term changes that are often called macroevolution. Macroevolutionary changes can be strongly influenced by events that occur so infrequently that they are unlikely to be observed during microevolutionary studies. Also, because the way evolutionary agents act changes over time, we cannot interpret the past simply by extending today’s results backward in time. Additional types of evidence must be gathered if we wish to understand the course of evolution over more than a billion years.”

– Purves W. K., Orians G. H., & Heller H. C., Life: The Science of Biology, 1992, 3rd Edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc., W. H. Freeman and Company, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA, p. 418. Cited by Optimus here.

“Creationists usually concede that evolutionary theory provides a satisfactory explanation of micro-evolutionary processes, but they dig in their heels when it comes to macro-evolution. Here, creationists are using the distinction that biologists draw between evolutionary novelties that arise within a species and the appearance of traits that mark the origin of new species.

– Sober, Elliott. Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science. 2008. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, p. 182. Cited by Mung, here.

“What really excites people – biologists and paleontologists among them – are transitional forms: those fossils that span the gap between two very different kinds of living organisms. Did birds really come from reptiles, and land animals from fish, and whales from land animals? If so, where is the fossil evidence? Even some creationists will admit that minor changes in size and shape might occur over time – a process called microevolution – but they reject the idea that one very different kind of animal or plant can come from another (macroevolution).”

– Coyne, Jerry A. Why Evolution Is True. 2009. Oxford University Press, p. 36. Cited by Mung here.

“MACROEVOLUTION: ‘Major’ evolutionary change, usually thought of as large changes in body form or the evolution of one type of plant or animal from another type. The change from our primate ancestor to modern humans, or from early reptiles to birds, would be considered macroevolution.

“MICROEVOLUTION: ‘Minor’ evolutionary change, such as the change in size or color of a species. One example is the evolution of different skin colors or hair types among human populations; another is the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.”

– Coyne, Jerry A. Why Evolution Is True. 2009. Oxford University Press, Glossary, pp. 268-269.

“To a biologist, the “it’s just microevolution” argument is painfully obtuse. In normal science, “microevolution” refers to evolutionary processes within gene pools, such as the origin and spread of individual gene variants. “Macroevolution” refers to evolutionary processes that work across separated gene pools. Speciation, a process that can be observed in nature, and that creationists accept, is the boundary between microevolution and macroevolution, because speciation occurs when one gene pool permanently splits into two separate gene pools. A speciation event is a case of macroevolution. So are other events that apply to whole gene pools, such as extinction…

“Evolutionary biologists on both sides of famously contentious debates seem to agree that the definition of macroevolution boils down to “evolution above the species level.”

– Matzke, Nicholas J., and Gross, Paul R. (2006). “Analyzing Critical Analysis: The Fallback Antievolutionist Strategy.” Chapter 2 of Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for Our Schools. Scott, E., and Branch, G., eds., Beacon Press, pp. 49-50. Cited by Nick Matzke here.

Terminological ambiguities – different usages of the term “macroevolution”

In the interests of fairness and clarity, I’d like to quote the following passage by biologist Nick Matzke, on the various senses of the word “macroevolution”:

This highlights another thing creationists and other ill-informed antievolutionists just don’t get: just because different writers are talking about the word “macroevolution”, doesn’t mean that they are talking about the same thing. And the discussions aren’t even the same over the decades that those quotes are mined from.

E.g., within macroevolution, scientists study:

speciation (splitting of gene pools, reproductive isolation mechanisms)

lineage dynamics (rates of speciation and extinction; mass extinctions; patterns in phylogenetic trees)

rates of change across species in the fossil record – punctuated equilibrium, contrary to virtually all infuriating, blindly-repeated silliness from antievolutionists, was just about how speciation – the SMALLEST sort of macroevolutionary change – appears in the fossil record. It is about small jumps in morphology between closely-related sister species.

evolution of development, including both “novel” structures and “exaptation” (the latter being far more common than true novelty, whatever “true novelty” means)

the statistical estimation of the history of character change (or biogeographic change, etc.) on phylogenetic trees, and inference of the best statistical models that describe this process

origin of “higher taxa” – this is common in older literature, but Linnaean ranked taxonomy is being gradually abandoned in biology, since we can just use phylogenies without needing any artificial ranks, which were never well-defined anyway

Scientists can be talking about any of the above, or other topics, under the topic of “macroevolution”. And for any of the above, a debate can be had about to what extent an extrapolationist model works as an explanation.

– Matzke, Nicholas J., in a comment on my Uncommon Descent post, A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution.

Historical note: Where did the term “macroevolution” come from?

At this point, some readers may be wondering where the term “macroevolution” and “microevolution” came from in the first place. It turns out that they have a long and controversial history, as biologists have flip-flopped over the last ninety years, on the question of whether the former is explicable in terms of the latter:

I. A. Filipchenko (1929) coined the terms microevolution and macroevolution and argued that one could not be inferred from the other. Macroevolution concerned the origins of higher taxa. Originally, H. F. Osborn (1925), G. G. Simpson, and other American paleontologists did not accept the view that the fossil record could be explained by the accumulation of minute selectable changes over millions of years. But… by 1951 Dobzhansky could confidently declare, ‘Evolution is a change in the genetic composition of populations. The study of mechanisms of evolution falls within the province of population genetics.’ Thus, evolution was seen as a subset of the formal mathematics of population genetics…, and there was nothing in evolutionary biology that fell outside of it. One of the major tenets of the Modern Synthesis has been that of extrapolation: the phenomena of macroevolution, the evolution of species and higher taxa, are fully explained by the microevolutionary processes that gives [sic] rise to varieties within species. Macroevolution can be reduced to microevolution. That is, the origins of higher taxa can be explained by population genetics…” (p. 358)

The concept that macroevolution could not be derived from microevolution remained as an underground current in evolutionary theory. Every so often, it was brought to the surface by developmentally oriented evolutionary biologists such as Goldschmidt, Waddington, or de Beer… But these attempts to decouple microevolution from macroevolution were either ignored or marginalized (see Gilbert, 1994a). (p. 362)

Macroevolution was brought back as autonomous entity only after Eldredge and Gould (1972), Stanley (1979), and others postulated an alternative view to the gradualism that characterized the Modern Synthesis. By 1980, Gould claimed that the idea of ‘gradual alleleic [sic] substitution as a mode for all evolutionary change’ was effectively dead. This view did not go unchallenged, and by 1982, Gould’s view had become more specific. It wasn’t that the Modern Synthesis was wrong; rather, it was incomplete. ‘Nothing about microevolutionary population genetics, or any other aspect of microevolutionary theory, is wrong or inadequate at its level…. But it is not everything’… While punctuated equilibrium remained a controversial theory, it did bring to light the question of the autonomy of macroevolution. Indeed, the failure of microevolutionary biology to distinguish between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism demonstrated its weakness when applied to macroevolution…. Molecular studies… were similarly pointing to ‘evolution at two levels,’ one molecular, the other morphological. Thus, by the early 1980s, numerous paleontologists and evolutionary biologists (Gould, Stanley, Eldredge, Verba [sic, should be Vrba], and mostly critically, Ayala) came to the conclusion that although macroevolutionary phenomena were underlain by microevolutionary phenomena, the two areas were autonomous and that macroevolutionary processes could not be explained solely by microevolutionary events.” (p. 362)

– Scott F. Gilbert, John M. Opitz, and Rudolf A. Raff. 1996. “Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology.” Developmental Biology 173:357-372.

Thus Professor Tour’s public skepticism regarding whether macroevolution is merely an extrapolation of microevolution (as orthodox Darwinists have traditionally maintained) or whether it represents something fundamentally different, has some prominent scientific defenders. Mr. Matzke will doubtless point out that these anti-reductionist scientists were avowed evolutionists, whereas Professor Tour is not, and that’s perfectly true. In reply, I would argue that Tour has every right as a scientist to not only critique, on chemical grounds, the conventional view that macroevolution is merely microevolution writ large, but also to argue that the alternative evolutionary views put forward by scientists (such as Gould) who disagree with the orthodox Darwinian view are no less deficient, from a chemical standpoint.

In the Appendix at the end of my post, I’ve quoted the opinions of various scientists as to whether macroevolution can be regarded as merely an extension of microevolution. As the quotes below confirm, the standard view (espoused by Dawkins, Prothero and Coyne) is that macroevolution is indeed nothing more than microevolution writ large. This was what the proponents of the modern evolutionary synthesis maintained. Even de Beer and Eldredge can be cited in support of this view. Although there are some prominent scientific dissenters from the “standard” view (Gould, Lewin, Erwin, Carroll and Macneill), they seem to constitute a minority.

Nick Matzke’s scientific quarrel with Professor Tour

I’d now like to address the central point of contention between Professor Tour and biologist Nick Matzke. Matzke recently contended that Professor James Tour was making a huge category mistake in his demand for a chemical explanation of how macroevolution works. Matzke argued that Tour was trying to explain evolution at the wrong level, and lambasted Tour for “the entire bizarre, naive, and confused idea that explaining macroevolution is a matter of ‘chemistry’, when it is much more closely connected to ecology, biogeography, environmental change, natural selection, etc.” and then added,

“Now, if what he meant wasn’t ‘macroevolution’, but specifically the evolution of developmental systems, i.e. evo-devo – which is what those articles are about – then the request for ‘chemical details’ would make a tiny bit more sense, but it’s still bizarre.

Matzke concluded:

“What any serious student of the question would look at would be the homologies, genetics, mutations, selection pressures, and functional shifts involved in the origin of a particular structure. Pretending that it’s just ‘chemistry’ that is important, and chemistry only, is just weird. It’s some old-fashioned tidbit of reductionism adopted by someone who apparently can’t be bothered to learn the basics about a field before proclaiming it fallacious.”

Matzke is putting words into Professor Tour’s mouth here: nowhere does he claim that “it’s just ‘chemistry’ that is important, and chemistry only.” Nor has Tour ever espoused reductionism. Rather, what he insists is that macroevolutionary processes have to be describable at a chemical level. This certainly seems to be a reasonable request, and if Matzke thinks it isn’t, he should tell us why.

Nevertheless, I have to confess that when I first read Nick Matzke’s comments, I was rather perplexed. Could an eminent scientist such as Professor Tour have really made such an elementary mistake as the one which Matzke attributes to him? It seemed very unlikely.

I get mail from Spain

A few days ago, a very perceptive reader from Spain emailed me with an insightful comment. He pointed out that in a recent post on 15 February 2013, entitled, Is the genetic code a real code?, I had critiqued the view defended by Alan Fox, that the genetic code was not a real code, and that everything in the process of protein synthesis could be described in terms of strict chemistry, without the need to invoke a code in order to explain it. On Fox’s view, “DNA transcription and translation is a chemical chain of reactions that depends on the spatial conformation and inherent chemical properties of atoms and molecules.” Fox added that whenever scientists refer to a code, they are merely using a convenient shorthand:

I see no communicative element in the chemical processes that occur when DNA sequences are transcribed into RNA and translated into polypeptide sequences. It’s all a result of the inherent physical and chemical properties of the interacting molecules… To lump chemical processes in with aspects of linguistics is such a stretch that any set that encompasses both is large enough and fuzzy enough to be meaningless… At the cellular and sub-cellular level and consequently and cumulatively at the level of the organism there is a huge amount of communication going on. It is chemical communication… “Encode” could be used as a defined shorthand for some step in the chemical processes that go on in the cell, of course. Maybe there is a scientific definition in the context of biochemistry.

Now that’s reductionism for you. And it’s a form of reductionism espoused by many of Darwin’s defenders, when discussing the origin of life.

My reader from Spain then pointed out that if Fox’s reductionist view were true, then all bio-functional processes (including those that occur in evolution) would be reducible to chemistry, and evolution itself would be nothing but a series of transitions between different chemical processes. In that case, macroevolution would have to be ultimately explicable in terms of chemistry, and Professor Tour’s request that some scientist should be able to explain how it works at the chemical level would be an entirely legitimate one.

So it is surprising that Nick Matzke declares himself to be shocked, shocked, when a chemistry asks him to explain how macroevolution works at a chemical level, but does not bat an eyelid when his fellow Darwinists roundly assert that the origin of the genetic code can be explained at the chemical level. Is there an inconsistency here? It certainly seems so!

The only way in which Matzke could legitimately avoid Professor Tour’s demand for an explanation of how macroevolution works at the chemical level is by maintaining that the capacity to evolve, at the macro level (i.e. at the species level and above), is an emergent property of organisms which supervenes upon, but is not reducible to, their underlying biochemistry. In that case, there should be higher-level laws of Nature that explain how macroevolution works. Matzke would then be espousing a form of holism.

Does holism offer a way out for Matzke?

Now, I have no problem if Matzke wants to publicly endorse holism, in order to explain macroevolution. But I would then ask him: where are the scientific laws that explain how macroevolution works? At this point, we should recall Galileo’s dictum that the universe is written in the language of mathematics. If there are “higher-level” laws of macroevolution, then they have to be written in that language. Where’s the math?

Reading through the various definitions of macroevolution that assiduous readers on Uncommon Descent had managed to dig up from the scientific literature, my attention was drawn to the following comment made on Uncommon Descent back in 2006, by Cornell evolutionary biologist Allen Macneill, a man for whom I have the highest respect:

“In other words, microevolution (i.e. natural selection, genetic drift, and other processes that happen anagenetically at the population level) and macroevolution (i.e. extinction/adaptive radiation, genetic innovation, and symbiosis that happen cladogenetically at the species level and above) are in many ways fundamentally different processes with fundamentally different mechanisms. Furthermore, for reasons beyond the scope of this thread, macroevolution is probably not mathematically modelable in the way that microevolution has historically been.

– MacNeill, Allen, in a comment on “We is Junk” article by PaV at Uncommon Descent, November 10, 2006.

When I read that remark, I had an “Ah-ha!” moment. I realized then that the evidential case for macroevolution is like a house built on a foundation of sand.

Surprise! There’s no satisfactory mathematical model for macroevolution, at the present time

In 2006, Professor Allen Macneill acknowledged that macroevolution is not mathematically modelable in the way that microevolution is. He could have meant that macroevolution is not mathematically modelable at all; alternatively, he may have simply meant that macroevolutionary models are not as detailed as microevolutionary models. If he meant the latter, then I would ask: where’s the mathematics that explains macroevolution? Surprisingly, it turns out that there is currently no adequate mathematical model for Darwinian macroevolution. Professor James Tour’s remark that “The Emperor has no clothes” is spot-on.

Evolutionary biology has certainly been the subject of extensive mathematical theorizing. The overall name for this field is population genetics, or the study of allele frequency distribution and change under the influence of the four main evolutionary processes: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow. Population genetics attempts to explain speciation within this framework. However, at the present time, there is no mathematical model – not even a “toy model” – showing that Darwin’s theory of macroevolution can even work, much less work within the time available. Darwinist mathematicians themselves have admitted as much.

In 2011, I had the good fortune to listen to a one-hour talk posted on Youtube, entitled, Life as Evolving Software. The talk was given by Professor Gregory Chaitin, a world-famous mathematician and computer scientist, at PPGC UFRGS (Portal do Programa de Pos-Graduacao em Computacao da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul.Mestrado), in Brazil, on 2 May 2011. I was profoundly impressed by Professor Chaitin’s talk, because he was very honest and up-front about the mathematical shortcomings of the theory of evolution in its current form. As a mathematician who is committed to Darwinism, Chaitin is trying to create a new mathematical version of Darwin’s theory which proves that evolution can really work. He has recently written a book, Proving Darwin: Making Biology Mathematical (Random House, 2012, ISBN: 978-0-375-42314-7), which elaborates on his ideas.

Here are some excerpts from Chaitin’s talk, part of which I transcribed in my post, At last, a Darwinist mathematician tells the truth about evolution (November 6, 2011):

I’m trying to create a new field, and I’d like to invite you all to leap in, join [me] if you feel like it. I think we have a remarkable opportunity to create a kind of a theoretical mathematical biology

So let me tell you a little bit about this viewpoint … of biology which I think may enable us to create a new … mathematical version of Darwin’s theory, maybe even prove that evolution works for the skeptics who don’t believe it…

I don’t want evolution to stagnate, because as a pure mathematician, if the system evolves and it stops evolving, that’s like it never evolved at all… I want to prove that evolution can go on forever

OK, so software is everywhere there, and what I want to do is make a theory about randomly evolving, mutating and evolving software – a little toy model of evolution where I can prove theorems, because I love Darwin’s theory, I have nothing against it, but, you know, it’s just an empirical theory. As a pure mathematician, that’s not good enough

… John Maynard Smith is saying that we define life as something that evolves according to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Now this may seem that it’s totally circular reasoning, but it’s not. It’s not that kind of reasoning, because the whole point, as a pure mathematician, is to prove that there is something in the world of pure math that satisfies this definition – you know, to invent a mathematical life-form in the Pythagorean world that I can prove actually does evolve according to Darwin’s theory, and to prove that there is something which satisfies this definition of being alive. And that will be at least a proof that in some toy model, Darwin’s theory of evolution works – which I regard as the first step in developing this as a theory, this viewpoint of life as evolving software….

…I want to know what is the simplest thing I need mathematically to show that evolution by natural selection works on it? You see, so this will be the simplest possible life form that I can come up with….

The first thing I … want to see is: how fast will this system evolve? How big will the fitness be? How big will the number be that these organisms name? How quickly will they name the really big numbers? So how can we measure the rate of evolutionary progress, or mathematical creativity of my little mathematicians, these programs? Well, the way to measure the rate of progress, or creativity, in this model, is to define a thing called the Busy Beaver function. One way to define it is the largest fitness of any program of N bits in size. It’s the biggest whole number without a sign that can be calculated if you could name it, with a program of N bits in size….

So what happens if we do that, which is sort of cumulative random evolution, the real thing? Well, here’s the result. You’re going to reach Busy Beaver function N in a time that is – you can estimate it to be between order of N squared and order of N cubed. Actually this is an upper bound. I don’t have a lower bound on this. This is a piece of research which I would like to see somebody do – or myself for that matter – but for now it’s just an upper bound. OK, so what does this mean? This means, I will put it this way. I was very pleased initially with this.

Table:
Exhaustive search reaches fitness BB(N) in time 2^N.
Intelligent Design reaches fitness BB(N) in time N. (That’s the fastest possible regime.)
Random evolution reaches fitness BB(N) in time between N^2 and N^3.

This means that picking the mutations at random is almost as good as picking them the best possible way…

But I told a friend of mine … about this result. He doesn’t like Darwinian evolution, and he told me, “Well, you can look at this the other way if you want. This is actually much too slow to justify Darwinian evolution on planet Earth. And if you think about it, he’s right… If you make an estimate, the human genome is something on the order of a gigabyte of bits. So it’s … let’s say a billion bits – actually 6 x 10^9 bits, I think it is, roughly – … so we’re looking at programs up to about that size [here he points to N^2 on the slide] in bits, and N is about of the order of a billion, 10^9, and the time, he said … that’s a very big number, and you would need this to be linear, for this to have happened on planet Earth, because if you take something of the order of 10^9 and you square it or you cube it, well … forget it. There isn’t enough time in the history of the Earth … Even though it’s fast theoretically, it’s too slow to work. He said, “You really need something more or less linear.” And he has a point…

Professor Chaitin’s point here is that if even a process of intelligently guided evolution takes, say, one billion years (1,000,000,000 years) to reach its goal, then an unguided process of cumulative random evolution (i.e. Darwin’s theory) will take one billion times one billion years to reach the same goal, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. That’s one quintillion years. The problem here should be obvious: the Earth is less than five billion years old, and even the universe is less than 14 billion years old.

Debunking a popular myth: ”There’s plenty of time for evolution”

At this point, I imagine Matzke will want to cite a 2010 paper in Proceedings of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), titled “There’s plenty of time for evolution” by Herbert S. Wilf and Warren J. Ewens, a biologist and a mathematician at the University of Pennsylvania. Although it does not refer to them by name, there’s little doubt that Wilf and Ewens intended their work to respond to the arguments put forward by intelligent-design proponents, since it declares in its first paragraph:

…One of the main objections that have been raised holds that there has not been enough time for all of the species complexity that we see to have evolved by random mutations. Our purpose here is to analyze this process, and our conclusion is that when one takes account of the role of natural selection in a reasonable way, there has been ample time for the evolution that we observe to have taken place.

Evolutionary biologist Professor Jerry Coyne praised the paper, saying that it provides “one step towards dispelling the idea that Darwinian evolution works too slowly to account for the diversity of life on Earth today.” Famous last words.

A 2012 paper, Time and Information in Evolution, by Winston Ewert, Ann Gauger, William Dembski and Robert Marks II, contains a crushing refutation of Wilf and Ewens’ claim that there’s plenty of time for evolution to occur. The authors of the new paper offer a long list of reasons why Wilf and Ewens’ model of evolution isn’t biologically realistic:

Wilf and Ewens argue in a recent paper that there is plenty of time for evolution to occur. They base this claim on a mathematical model in which beneficial mutations accumulate simultaneously and independently, thus allowing changes that require a large number of mutations to evolve over comparatively short time periods. Because changes evolve independently and in parallel rather than sequentially, their model scales logarithmically rather than exponentially. This approach does not accurately reflect biological evolution, however, for two main reasons. First, within their model are implicit information sources, including the equivalent of a highly informed oracle that prophesies when a mutation is “correct,” thus accelerating the search by the evolutionary process. Natural selection, in contrast, does not have access to information about future benefits of a particular mutation, or where in the global fitness landscape a particular mutation is relative to a particular target. It can only assess mutations based on their current effect on fitness in the local fitness landscape. Thus the presence of this oracle makes their model radically different from a real biological search through fitness space. Wilf and Ewens also make unrealistic biological assumptions that, in effect, simplify the search. They assume no epistasis between beneficial mutations, no linkage between loci, and an unrealistic population size and base mutation rate, thus increasing the pool of beneficial mutations to be searched. They neglect the effects of genetic drift on the probability of fixation and the negative effects of simultaneously accumulating deleterious mutations. Finally, in their model they represent each genetic locus as a single letter. By doing so, they ignore the enormous sequence complexity of actual genetic loci (typically hundreds or thousands of nucleotides long), and vastly oversimplify the search for functional variants. In similar fashion, they assume that each evolutionary “advance” requires a change to just one locus, despite the clear evidence that most biological functions are the product of multiple gene products working together. Ignoring these biological realities infuses considerable active information into their model and eases the model’s evolutionary process.

After reading this devastating refutation of Wilf and Ewens’ 2012 paper, I think it would be fair to conclude that we don’t currently have an adequate mathematical model explaining how macroevolution can occur at all, let alone one showing that it can take place within the time available. Four billion years might sound like a long time, but if your model requires not billions, but quintillions of years for it to work, then obviously, your model of macroevolution isn’t mathematically up to scratch.

Debunking another popular myth: “The eye could have evolved in a relatively short period.”

Parts of the eye: 1. vitreous body 2. ora serrata 3. ciliary muscle 4. ciliary zonules 5. canal of Schlemm 6. pupil 7. anterior chamber 8. cornea 9. iris 10. lens cortex 11. lens nucleus 12. ciliary process 13. conjunctiva 14. inferior oblique muscle 15. inferior rectus muscle 16. medial rectus muscle 17. retinal arteries and veins 18. optic disc 19. dura mater 20. central retinal artery 21. central retinal vein 22. optic nerve 23. vorticose vein 24. bulbar sheath 25. macula 26. fovea 27. sclera 28. choroid 29. superior rectus muscle 30. retina. Image courtesy of Chabacano and Wikipedia.

In 1994, Dan-Erik Nilsson and Susanne Pelger of Lund University in Sweden wrote a paper entitled, A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve (Proceedings: Biological Sciences, Vol. 256, No. 1345, April 22 1994, pp. 53-58) in which they cautiously estimated the time required for a fully-developed lens eye to develop from a light-sensitive spot to be no more than 360,000 years or so.

In 2003, the mathematician David Berlinski wrote an incisive critique of this outlandish claim. (See here for Nilsson’s response.) Some of Berlinski’s contentions turned out to be based on a misunderstanding of Nilsson and Pelger’s data, but Berlinski scored significantly when he pointed out that Nilsson and Pelger’s paper was lacking in the mathematical details one might expect in support of their claim that the eye took only 360,000 years to evolve:

Nilsson and Pelger’s paper contains no computer simulation, and no computer simulation has been forthcoming from them in all the years since its initial publication…

There are two equations in Nilsson and Pelger’s paper, and neither requires a computer for its solution; and there are no others.

Indeed, Nilsson had even admitted as much, in correspondence with Berlinski:

You are right that my article with Pelger is not based on computer simulation of eye evolution. I do not know of anyone else who [has] successfully tried to make such a simulation either. But we are currently working on it.”

That was in 2001. As far as I am aware, no simulation has since been forthcoming from Nilsson and Pelger, although as we’ll see below, a genetic algorithm developed by an Israeli researcher in 2007 demonstrated that their model was based on wildly optimistic assumptions about evolutionary pathways.

In the meantime, Nilsson and Pelger’s 1994 paper has been gleefully cited by evolutionary biologists as proof that the origin of complex structures is mathematically modelable. Here is how Professor Jerry Coyne describes Nilsson and Pelger’s work in his book, Why Evolution Is True:

We can, starting with a simple precursor, actually model the evolution of the eye and see whether selection can turn that precursor into a more complex eye within a reasonable amount of time. Dan Nilsson and Susanne Pelger of Lund University in Sweden made such a mathematical model, starting with a patch of light-sensitive cells backed by a pigment layer (a retina). They then allowed the tissues around this structure to deform themselves randomly, limiting the amount of change to only 1% of size or thickness at each step. To mimic natural selection, the model accepted only mutations that improved the visual acuity, and rejected those that degraded it.

Within an amazingly short time, the model yielded a complex eye, going through stages similar to the real-animal series described above. The eyes folded inward to form a cup, the cup became capped with a transparent surface, and the interior of the cup gelled to form not only a lens, but a lens with dimensions that produced the best possible image.

Beginning with a flatworm-like eyespot, then, the model produced something like the complex eye of vertebrates, all through a series of tiny adaptive steps – 1,829 of them, to be exact. But Nilsson and Pelget could also calculate how long this process would take. To do this, they made some assumptions about how much genetic variation for eye shape existed in the population that began experiencing selection, and how strongly selection would favor each useful step in eye size. These assumptions were deliberately conservative, assuming that there were reasonable but not large amounts of genetic variation and that natural selection was very weak. Nevertheless, the eye evolved very quickly: the entire process from rudimentary light-patch to camera eye took fewer than 400,000 years.

– Coyne, Jerry A. Why Evolution Is True. 2009. Oxford University Press, p. 155.

I’d like to point out here that Coyne’s starry-eyed description of Nilsson and Pelger’s research overlooks a vital point raised by Professor Michael Behe in his article, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference. Readers will recall that Behe declared:

The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an ‘evolutionary explanation’ of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant.”

Nilsson and Pelger’s mathematical calculations addressed the evolution of the eye’s anatomy, but they said nothing about the underlying biochemistry. Using Behe’s criteria, we can see at once that their macroevolutionary model of the evolution of the eye is a failure. Professor James Tour would dismiss it on similar grounds. He would doubtless ask, rhetorically: “Does anyone understand the chemical details behind the macroevolution of the eye?” I hope that Nick Matzke will now concede that this is a reasonable question.

A more skeptical assessment of Nilsson and Pelger’s 1994 paper can be found in an online applied physics thesis by Dov Rhodes, entitled, Approximating the Evolution Time of the Eye: A Genetic Algorithms Approach. The thesis makes for fascinating reading. I shall quote a few brief excerpts:

“A paper published in 1994 by the Swedish scientists Nilsson and Pelger [6] gained immediate worldwide fame for describing the evolution process for an eye, and approximating the time required for an eye to evolve from a simple patch that sense electromagnetic radiation. Nilsson and Pelger (NP) outlined an evolutionary path, where by minute improvements on each step a cameratype eye can evolve in approximately 360,000 years, which is extremely fast on an evolutionary time scale… (p. 1)

The main problem with the NP model is that although the evolutionary path that it describes might be a legitimate one, it neglects consideration for divergent paths. It is easy to construct a situation in which the best temporary option for the improvement of an eye does not lead towards the development of the globally optimal solution. This idea motivates our alternative approach, the method of genetic algorithms. In this paper we use the genetic algorithm with a simplified (2-dimensional) version of NP’s setup and show the error in their approach. We argue that if their approach is mistaken in the simplified model, it is even farther from reality in the full evolutionary setting. (p. 2)

“Although the paraboloid landscape guarantees convergence, the GA is still a probabilistic algorithm and thus will not always converge quickly. As in evolution, the most efficient path is not necessarily the one taken. This fact suggests that our already conservative value of lambda = 5.41 would be even larger if compared with a real deterministic algorithm such as the NP (Nilsson-Pelger) model. Even though their computation accounts to some extent for the average probability of evolutionary development over time, it fails to consider the countless different evolutionary paths, and instead chooses just one.

“Rather than 360 thousand generations, a reasonable lower bound should be at least 5*360,000 = 1.8*10^6 generations, and if our previous speculations have merit, an order of magnitude higher would ramp up the estimate to around 18 million generations. Future experiments that would be useful for improving the accuracy of our results might involve varying the mutation parameter, and most importantly letting algorithms run for longer, allowing the lower bound for convergence to be pushed even higher.” (p. 15)

What Rhodes’ paper demonstrates is that the 1994 estimate by Nilsson and Pelger of how long it took the eye to evolve is more like a case of intelligently guided evolution than Darwinian evolution. As Rhodes puts it: “Even though their computation accounts to some extent for the average probability of evolutionary development over time, it fails to consider the countless different evolutionary paths, and instead chooses just one.”

Why the evidence for unguided Darwinian macroevolution is like a house built on a foundation of sand

We have seen that there’s curently no good theory that can serve as an adequate model for Darwinian macroevolution – even at a “holistic” level. As we saw, Professor Gregory Chaitin’s toy models don’t go down to the chemical level requested by Professor James Tour, but these models have failed to validate Darwin’s theory of evolution, or even show that it could work.

At this point, there is an alternative line that Matzke might want to take. He could claim that macroevolution is ultimately explicable in terms of bottom-level laws and physical processes, but that unfortunately, scientists haven’t discovered what they are yet. From a theoretical perspective, reductionism would then be true after all, and the chemical explanation of macroevolution demanded by Professor Tour could be given. From a practical standpoint, however, it would be impossible for scientists to provide such an explanation within the foreseeable future.

If Matzke wishes to take this road, then he is tacitly admitting that scientists don’t yet know either the scientific laws (which are written in the language of mathematics) or the physical processes that ultimately explain and drive macroevolution. But if they don’t know either of these, then I would ask him: why should we believe that it actually occurs? After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated?

Are there any good scientific parallels to the lack of evidence for macroevolution?

At this point in the discussion, Darwinists will often cite two historical illustrations to support their claim that belief in macroevolution can still be reasonable, even if we currently lack a mathematical model for it. The two examples they love to mention are continental drift (the mechanism of which remained an unsolved mystery, long after good empirical evidence supporting it was discovered by scientists) and gravity (the theoretical basis of which is still not fully understood by scientists, although it is currently regarded as a curvature in the fabric of spacetime).

However, the analogy with continental drift is a poor one. After all, the process of continental drift can be observed and measured, and there is no micro/macro distinction. Extrapolate continental movements back 200 million years in time, and you end up with the super-continent of Pangaea.

Nor will gravity save the evolutionist: it can be described mathematically (e.g. by Newton’s law of universal gravitation, F = G.(m1.m2)/r^2), even if its physical basis remains mysterious.

Matzke: but macroevolution can be demonstrated! –

In a comment on my recent thread, A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution, Nick Matzke stoutly maintained that there’s plenty of observational evidence for macroevolution:

Dog breeds and many other domestic plants and animals have morphological differences much larger than the “macroevolutionary” differences typically seen between species in a genus or even family. Cue excuse for not accepting the evidence you JUST requested in 3, 2, 1…

OK, Nick. Here’s my excuse. There’s a saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. Here’s a photo of the skeleton of a Great Dane, next to a Chihuahua:

Apart from size, there’s not much of a difference in the skeletons, is there?

“What about a human being and a great ape?” you might ask. Here’s another picture, showing a human skeleton and a gorilla skeleton. Not so similar, are they?

Chimpanzees and gorillas are man’s closest living relatives. The anatomical differences between humans and chimpanzees, which are quite extensive, are conveniently summarized in a handout prepared by Anthropology Professor Claud A. Ramblett the University of Texas, entitled, Primate Anatomy. Anyone who thinks that a series of random stepwise mutations, culled by the non-random but unguided process of natural selection, can account for the anatomical differences between humans and chimpanzees, should read this article very carefully. What it reveals is that an entire ensuite of changes, relating to the skull, teeth, vertebrae, thorax, shoulder, arms, hands, pelvis, legs and feet, not to mention the rate of skeletal maturation and method of locomotion, would have been required, in order to transform the common ancestor of humans and chimps into creatures like ourselves. Given the sheer diversity of changes that would have been required, it is surely reasonable to ask whether an unguided process, such as Darwinian macroevolution, could have accomplished this feat over a period of a few million years.

It is often claimed that neoteny accounts for many of the anatomical differences between human beings and great apes, and that humans resemble juvenile apes. Readers will be able to see how nonsensical this view is, by examining the following photo (WARNING: this may upset some viewers) of a baby human skeleton alongside a baby chimpanzee skeleton. Even at a young age, the differences between the two species are marked. I would invite readers to look at the skull, the rib cage, the pelvis, the arm bones and leg bones, and the hands and feet, and judge for themselves.

Now, I happen to accept the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees, although I’d also like to point out that it’s illogical to infer from the fact that a change is known to have occurred in the past that the change in question occurred as a result of physical processes that are known to us today. We don’t know that. Common descent is one thing; common descent as a result of Darwinian natural selection is quite another.

I’d also be inclined to agree with Nick Matzke’s claim that Homo erectus (broadly defined, to include Homo ergaster) is a direct ancestor of modern Homo sapiens, although I should point out in passing that evolutionary biologist Professor Coyne is far more circumspect when he writes of Homo erectus: “It may, though, have left two famous descendants: H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis, known respectively as “archaic H. sapiens” and the famous ‘Neanderthal man.’” But even if we compare Homo erectus (who had a smaller brain than that of modern humans, but who was virtually identical with us from the neck down) with modern Homo sapiens, the neurological differences are quite profound. There were changes in the prefrontal cortex that took place about 700,000 years ago, with the emergence of Homo heidelbergensis (Heidelberg man), which enabled long-term planning and inhibitory control, making self-sacrifice for the good of the group and life-long monogamy possible. Later on, there were also changes in the temporoparietal cortex, with the emergence of modern Homo sapiens, about 200,000 years ago, making possible the emergence of art, symbolism and religious rituals. Readers can learn more about these changes (which I’ll be writing about in a future post) in the following two articles:

Paleolithic public goods games: why human culture and cooperation did not evolve in one step by Benoit Dubreuil, in Biology and Philosophy (2010) 25:53–73, DOI 10.1007/s10539-009-9177-7.

The First Appearance of Symmetry in the Human Lineage: where Perception meets Art (careful: large file!) by Dr. Derek Hodgson. In Symmetry, 2011, 3, 37-53; doi:10.3390/3010037

Just as with vision, the changes required to enlarge the prefrontal cortex and the temporoparietal cortex in modern man had to be realized at the molecular level. There’s no escaping the nitty-gritty: if we’re going to explain how modern man got his brain, we’re going to have to supply the chemical details as well as genetic and anatomical details.

The necessary changes in the brains of our hominid ancestors which allowed human beings, in the true sense of the word, to emerge, were not trivial ones, and they were not merely a matter of “scaling up” a more primitive brain. We also forget that the human brain is the most complex machine known in the universe. We know that random changes plus non-random “selection” are not enough by themselves to create a pattern or a function – such as the function of being able to engage in long-term planning and inhibitory control, which characterized Heidelberg man, who emerged 700,000 years ago. As Professor William Dembski puts it in his essay, Conservation of Information Made Simple:

It’s easy to write computer simulations that feature selection, replication, and mutation (or SURVIVAL writ large, or differential survival and reproduction, or any such reduction of evolution to Darwinian principles) – and that go absolutely nowhere. Taken together, selection, replication, and mutation are not a magic bullet, and need not solve any interesting problems or produce any salient patterns.

If someone wants to argue that random copying errors plus non-random death are sufficient to make a brain with new cognitive abilities, I shall demand evidence before I believe such a claim. At the very least, I’d like a plausible sequence of genetic changes relating to the development of the human brain, that could have transformed an Australopithecus into Homo erectus and finally modern man, without the need for intelligent guidance..

In his online essay, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, Dr. Douglas Theobald, makes some truly outlandish statements about evolutionary change:

A more recent paper evaluating the evolutionary rate in guppies in the wild found rates ranging from 4000 to 45,000 darwins (Reznick 1997). [A darwin is a unit of evolutionary change – VJT.] Note that a sustained rate of “only” 400 darwins is sufficient to transform a mouse into an elephant in a mere 10,000 years (Gingerich 1983).

One of the most extreme examples of rapid evolution was when the hominid cerebellum doubled in size within ~100,000 years during the Pleistocene (Rightmire 1985). This “unique and staggering” acceleration in evolutionary rate was only 7 darwins (Williams 1992, p. 132). This rate converts to a minuscule 0.02% increase per generation, at most. For comparison, the fastest rate observed in the fossil record in the Gingerich study was 37 darwins over one thousand years, and this corresponds to, at most, a 0.06% change per generation.

I hope that by now, readers can see how naive that kind of argument is. Professor Tour is right: anatomical explanations are not enough. We do need to look at the underlying chemistry.

APPENDIX: What scientists say about the relation between macroevolution and microevolution

(a) Scientific authorities who SUPPORT the view that macroevolution is just an extrapolation of microevolution, over long periods of time

“Along with the reductionist attitude that organisms are nothing more than vessels to carry their genes came the extrapolation that the tiny genetic and phenotypic changes observed in fruit flies and lab rats were sufficient to explain all of evolution. This defines all evolution as microevolution, the gradual and tiny changes that cause different wing veins in a fruit fly or a slightly longer tail in a rat. From this, Neo-Darwinism extrapolates all larger evolutionary changes (macroevolution) as just microevolution writ large. These central tenets – reductionism, panselectionism, extrapolationism, and gradualism – were central to the Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy of the 1940s and 1950s and are still followed by the majority of evolutionary biologists today.

– Prothero, Donald R. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. 2007. Cited by Mung here.

“Many who reject darwinism on religious grounds . . . argue that such small changes [as seen in selective breeding] cannot explain the evolution of new groups of plants and animals. This argument defies common sense. When, after a Christmas visit, we watch grandma leave on the train to Miami, we assume that the rest of her journey will be an extrapolation of that first quarter-mile. A creationist unwilling to extrapolate from micro- to macroevolution is as irrational as an observer who assumes that, after grandma’s train disappears around the bend, it is seized by divine forces and instantly transported to Florida.”

– Coyne, Jerry A. 2001 (Aug 19). Nature 412:587. Cited by Richard Peachey here.

“…we shouldn’t expect to see more than small changes in one or a few features of a species – what is known as microevolutionary change. Given the gradual pace of evolution, it’s unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one “type” of plant or animal to another – so-called macroevolution – within a human lifetime. Though macroevolution is occurring today, we simply won’t be around long enough to see it. Remember that the issue is not whether macroevolutionary change happens – we already know from the fossil record that it does – but whether it was caused by natural selection, and whether natural selection can build complex features and organisms.”

– Coyne, Jerry A. Why Evolution Is True. 2009. Oxford University Press, p. 144. Cited by Mung here.

“So where are we? We know that a process very like natural selection – animal and plant breeding – has taken the genetic variation present in wild species and from it created huge “evolutionary” transformations. We know that these transformations can be much larger, and faster, than real evolutionary change that took place in the past. We’ve seen that selection operates in the laboratory, in microorganisms that cause disease, and in the wild. We know of no adaptations that absolutely could not have been molded by natural selection, and in many cases we can plausibly infer how selection did mold them. And mathematical models show that natural selection can produce complex features easily and quickly. The obvious conclusion: we can provisionally assume that natural selection is the cause of all adaptive evolution – though not of every feature of evolution, since genetic drift can also play a role.

“True, breeders haven’t turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven’t turned a bacterium into an amoeba (although, as we’ve seen, new bacterial species have arisen in the lab). But it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection. Big transformations take time – huge spans of it. To really see the power of selection, we must extrapolate the small changes that selection creates in our lifetime over the millions of years that it has really had to work in nature.”

– Coyne, Jerry A. Why Evolution Is True. 2009. Oxford University Press, p. 155.

The claim that microevolution can’t be extrapolated to macroevolution is ubiquitous among ID advocates and the creationists who preceded them…. it is nothing more than standard creation science terminology for the creationist claim that various groups of organisms were specially created by God, with specified limits on how far they could change over time.”

– Matzke, N. and Gross, P., 2006, here.

For biologists, then, the microevolution/macroevolution distinction is a matter of scale of analysis, and not some ill-defined level of evolutionary “newness.” Studies that examine evolution at a coarse scale of analysis are also macroevolutionary studies, because they are typically looking at multiple species – separate branches on the evolutionary tree. Evolution within a single twig on the tree, by contrast, is microevolution.”

– Matzke, N., and Gross, P. (2006). “Analyzing Critical Analysis: The Fallback Antievolutionist Strategy.” Chapter 2 of Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for Our Schools. Scott, E., and Branch, G., eds., Beacon Press, pp. 49-50. Cited by Nick Matzke here.

“I was not prepared to find creationists . . . actually accepting the [peppered] moths as examples of small-scale evolution by natural selection! . . . That, to my mind, is tantamount to conceding the entire issue, for . . . there is utter continuity in evolutionary processes from the smallest scales (microevolution) up through the largest scales (macroevolution).”

– Eldredge, N. 2000. The Triumph of Evolution. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co. p. 119. (cf. pp. 62, 66, 76, 88). Cited by Richard Peachey here.

“… there is no justification for dismissing the selective and genetic mechanism responsible for the change from grey to black in [peppered] moths as incapable of producing new organs… there are no grounds for doubting that the mechanism of selection and mutation that has adaptively turned grey moths black in 100 years has been adequate to achieve evolutionary changes that have taken place during hundreds and thousands of millions of years.”

– De Beer, G. 1964. Atlas of Evolution. London: Nelson. pp. 93f. Cited by Richard Peachey here.

“Most sceptics about natural selection are prepared to accept that it can bring about minor changes like the dark coloration that has evolved in various species of moth since the industrial revolution. But, having accepted this, they then point out how small a change this is. … But… the moths only took a hundred years to make their change…. just think about the time involved.

– Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. p. 40. Cited by Richard Peachey here.

(b) Scientists who are UNDECIDED on whether macroevolution is explicable in terms of microevolution

One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved; Historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between some dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism.”

– Stern, David L. Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation, Evolution, 2000, 54, 1079-1091. A contribution from the University of Cambridge.

A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution – whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.”

– Simons, Andrew M. The Continuity of Microevolution and Macroevolution Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 2002, 15, 688-701. A contribution from Carleton University.

“A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution). Outsiders to this rich literature may be surprised that there is no consensus on this issue, and that strong viewpoints are held at both ends of the spectrum, with many undecided.”

– Carroll, Sean B. 2001 (Feb 8). Nature 409:669. Cited by Richard Peachey here.

“Most professional biologists today think of microevolution as evolution within species and of macroevolution as what happens over time to differentiate species or ‘higher’ groups of organisms (genera, families, etc.)….

“The reason I think creationists, and the public at large, are not well served by scientists in this case is because few evolutionary biologists talk to the public to begin with, and when they are confronted with the micro/macro question, they simply accuse creationists of making up such a distinction and move on. What they (we) should say is that there is indeed genuine disagreement among professional biologists about the meaningfulness of the concept, and even those who agree that there is something to it are still trying to figure out an explanation.

– Massimo Pigliucci, “Is There Such a Thing as Macroevolution?” Skeptical Inquirer 31(2):18,19, March/April, 2007. Pigliucci is a prominent professor of evolutionary biology and philosophy.
(Cited by Richard Peachey here.)

(c) Scientific authorities who REJECT the view that macroevolution is merely an extrapolation of microevolution

“PaV asked:

Do the “engines of variation” provide sufficient variation to move beyond microevolution to macroevolution.”

“This is indeed the central question. One of the central tenets of the “modern synthesis of evolutionary biology” as celebrated in 1959 was the idea that macroevolution and microevolution were essentially the same process. That is, macroevolution was simply microevolution extrapolated over deep evolutionary time, using the same mechanisms and with essentially the same effects.

A half century of research into macroevolution has shown that this is probably not the case. In particular, macroevolutionary events (such as the splitting of a single species into two or more, a process known as cladogenesis) do not necessarily take a long time at all. Indeed, in plants it can take as little as a single generation. We have observed the origin of new species of rose, primroses, trees, and all sorts of plants by genetic processes, such as allopolyploidy and autopolyploidy. Indeed, most of the cultivated roses so beloved of gardeners are new species of roses that originated spontaneously as the result of chromosomal rearrangements, which rose fanciers then exploited.

The real problem, therefore, is explaining cladogenesis in animals. As Lynn Margulis has repeatedly pointed out, animals have a unique mechanism of sexual reproduction and development, one that apparently makes the kinds of chromosomal events that are common in plants very difficult in animals.

“However, she has proposed an alternative mechanism for cladogenesis in animals, based on the acquisition and fusion of genomes. Research into such mechanisms has only just begun, but has already been shown to explain the origin of eukaryotes via the fusion of disparate lines of prokaryotes, plus the origin of several species of animals and plants as the result of genome acquisition. As Lynn has been extraordinarily successful in the past in proposing testable mechanisms for macroevolutionary changes, I look forward to many more discoveries in this field.”

– MacNeill, Allen. comment on “We is Junk” article by PaV at Uncommon Descent, 2006.

“In other words, microevolution (i.e. natural selection, genetic drift, and other processes that happen anagenetically at the population level) and macroevolution (i.e. extinction/adaptive radiation, genetic innovation, and symbiosis that happen cladogenetically at the species level and above) are in many ways fundamentally different processes with fundamentally different mechanisms. Furthermore, for reasons beyond the scope of this thread, macroevolution is probably not mathematically modelable in the way that microevolution has historically been.

– MacNeill, Allen. comment on “We is Junk” article by PaV at Uncommon Descent, 2006.

Abstract

“Arguments over macroevolution versus microevolution have waxed and waned through most of the twentieth century. Initially, paleontologists and other evolutionary biologists advanced a variety of non-Darwinian evolutionary processes as explanations for patterns found in the fossil record, emphasizing macroevolution as a source of morphologic novelty. Later, paleontologists, from Simpson to Gould, Stanley, and others, accepted the primacy of natural selection but argued that rapid speciation produced a discontinuity between micro- and macroevolution. This second phase emphasizes the sorting of innovations between species. Other discontinuities appear in the persistence of trends (differential success of species within clades), including species sorting, in the differential success between clades and in the origination and establishment of evolutionary novelties. These discontinuities impose a hierarchical structure to evolution and discredit any smooth extrapolation from allelic substitution to large-scale evolutionary patterns. Recent developments in comparative developmental biology suggest a need to reconsider the possibility that some macroevolutionary discontinuites may be associated with the origination of evolutionary innovation. The attractiveness of macroevolution reflects the exhaustive documentation of large-scale patterns which reveal a richness to evolution unexplained by microevolution. If the goal of evolutionary biology is to understand the history of life, rather than simply document experimental analysis of evolution, studies from paleontology, phylogenetics, developmental biology, and other fields demand the deeper view provided by macroevolution.

– Erwin, Douglas H. Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution and Development, 2000, Mar-Apr;2(2):78-84.

“… large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species… The most conspicuous event in metazoan evolution was the dramatic origin of major new structures and body plans documented by the Cambrian explosion… The extreme speed of anatomical change and adaptive radiation during this brief time period requires explanations that go beyond those proposed for the evolution of species within the modern biota… This explosive evolution of phyla with diverse body plans is certainly not explicable by extrapolation from the processes and rates of evolution observed in modern species…”

– Carroll, Robert. 2000 (Jan). Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15(1):27f. Cited by Richard Peachey here.

“… biologists have documented a veritable glut of cases for rapid and eminently measurable evolution on timescales of years and decades… to be visible at all over so short a span, evolution must be far too rapid (and transient) to serve as the basis for major transformations in geological time. Hence, the ‘paradox of the visibly irrelevant’ – or, if you can see it at all, it’s too fast to matter in the long run… These shortest-term studies are elegant and important, but they cannot represent the general mode for building patterns in the history of life… Thus, if we can measure it at all (in a few years), it is too powerful to be the stuff of life’s history… [Widely publicized cases such as beak size changes in ‘Darwin’s finches’] represent transient and momentary blips and fillips that ‘flesh out’ the rich history of lineages in stasis, not the atoms of substantial and steadily accumulated evolutionary trends… One scale doesn’t translate into another.

– Gould, Stephen J. 1998 (Jan). Natural History 106(11):12, 14, 64. Cited by Richard Peachey here.

“If macroevolution is, as I believe, mainly a story of the differential success of certain kinds of species and, if most species change little in the phyletic mode during the course of their existence (Gould and Eldredge, 1977), then microevolutionary change within populations is not the stuff (by extrapolation) of major transformations.

– Gould, Stephen J., in Ernst Mayr and William B. Provine, The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology (Harvard University Press paperback, 1998; originally published in 1980), p. 170. Cited by Richard Peachey here.

“A wide spectrum of researchers – ranging from geologists and paleontologists, through ecologists and population geneticists, to embryologists and molecular biologists – gathered at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History under the simple conference title: Macroevolution. Their task was to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species and the evolutionary relationship between species… The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.

– Lewin, R. 1980 (Nov 21). Science 210:883. Cited by Richard Peachey here.

“What you are trying to argue, in a very confused way, is that you have some kind of problem with the statement that macroevolution is “just” microevolution over large amounts of time. Well, lots of people have a problem with this claim, including me – it’s rather like saying microeconomics can be simply scaled up to produce macroeconomics. Or that the ecology of a single field experiment can be scaled up to explain the macroecology of the Amazonian rainforest.”

– Matzke, Nicholas J., here.

Has anyone else noticed that Matzke falls into camps (a) and (c)?

Comments
PPS: Just for reference on concepts, let me contrast per a rough survey based on thoughts over the years: Physics: The general fundamental scientific study of matter & energy, and space-time with interactions driven by basic forces (currently, strong & weak, electro-magnetic and gravitational . . . ) on scales from particles to the cosmos as a whole . . . and some would say beyond to include a potential multiverse, with time scales from ~10^-44s to 10^17s [~14 BY], distance scales from ~10^-15 m for particles up to the observed cosmos at ~ 90 bn LY and more, and energy scales to match. Physical interactions and changes are concerned with these forces and factors, typically excluding those linked to formation or breakdown of compounds etc. Formation of Iron in cores of stars in a certain mass zone leading to supernovas and its properties in alloys etc are of physical interest. Save insofar as rusting exhibits interesting electrical phenomena and affects behaviour of materials and structures, rusting as a process is not typically a physics concern, it is handed over to the Chemists. [Hence the school level contrast physical and chemical changes beloved of High School Chem teachers.] Chemistry: a specialist (read, relatively narrowly focussed) physical science that largely focuses on valence shell dominated interactions of atoms, molecules, ions and related particles, typically divided across general & inorganic, organic and physical. (And yes, in physical Chem there is such a thing as nuclear Chemistry, and in radiation safety some of the damage mechanisms are via chemical actions of especially disturbed water molecules reacting with nearby biomolecules and causing breakdowns in biofunction.) Generally when one talks about chemical interactions and changes one is concerned with molecular identities, forming of chemical substances [the stuff commonly measured in moles etc], etc. Metal rusting is a chemical change, metal melting is by contrast a physical one. Chemistry is an interface science, e.g. interfacing to biology through biochemistry, and bleeding over into materials science which is linked to the physics of condensed matter. Physics, characteristically, is concerned with foundations.kairosfocus
July 4, 2014
July
07
Jul
4
04
2014
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT
PS: Let's just say there is a reason why, e.g. stellar nucleosynthesis is a topic in Astrophysics.kairosfocus
July 4, 2014
July
07
Jul
4
04
2014
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT
A-b: If you are a practising Chemist you need to talk with your colleagues in the Physics Dept . . . at best. Actually, you pretty well should know better. Chemistry is a physical science but it generally deals with a rather restricted and specialised set of interactions, in the main dealing with valence shell interactions and linked phenomena; with C-Chemistry taking up a huge chunk due to its connector-block properties. Fusion, especially stellar fusion of nuclei up the ladder from H to Fe depending on stellar mass, balance of radiation pressure and gravitation, etc (the dominant type in natural situations) is rather far from the focal area of Chemistry. You have wasted bandwidth on a tangential topic that only serves to show up an ill-founded contempt and intent to distract, distort, polarise, annoy and confuse. KFkairosfocus
July 4, 2014
July
07
Jul
4
04
2014
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT
Acartia_bogart:
Kairofocus, as I make a living as a chemist...
Someone cooking meth might make the same claim.Mung
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Kairofocus, as I make a living as a chemist , I believe that I am qualified to speak on the subject. I believe that I said that the difference is one of scale. Much in the same way that the difference between paint chips at Lowes and spectroscopy is a matter of scale. They are both based on the exact same principles.Acartia_bogart
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
A-b: I have made the matter clear enough, on good grounds; chemical interactions generally denote a small specialised range of interactions that are physical, involving valence electrons and energy levels maybe 1 - 10 eV or thereabouts. Fusion interactions are nuclear or particle events with interaction energies of order 1 - 10 MeV; fission ones involve nuclei and energy releases of maybe typically 80 - 140 or more MeV, linked to binding energy/mass defect per nucleon . . . this last involving both protons and neutrons. There is excellent reason to distinguish the two, and in particular Ev, your fellow objector to ID made a tyro's error which I spoke to. You are doing little more than kicking up clouds of rhetorical confusion at this point. Either you know very little of physics and chemistry, or you think you can play rhetorical games to pretend that ID advocates are ignorant -- in attempted defence of a tyro's blunder. KF PS: Just remember, there is an old joke about how to tell the physicists at a scientist convention, We are the ones that glow faintly blue or blue-green in the dark. The chemists will pronounce u-n-i-o-n-i-s-e-d as un-ionised. The difference in relevant energy levels speaks for itself. And yes Cancer is an occupational hazard for both, for different reasons.kairosfocus
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
Kairofocus, I must disagree chemistry and nuclear physics are both physical events. Or, if you will, both chemical events. Chemistry is all about how atoms react under various conditions. Nuclear physics is about how atoms react under various conditions. The only difference is a matter of scale.Acartia_bogart
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
A-B: The attempt to suggest that "not frequently" is enough to dismiss the significance of a material threshold and suggest there is a neat continuum inviting smooth extrapolation begs major questions. Micro changes are observed, Macro changes especially at body plan origin level are not. The latter involves crossing search space threshold barriers well beyond the blind chance and mechanical necessity capacity of the observed cosmos. On reasonable analysis, OOL would involve genomes of 100 - 1 mn bits in that warm little pond or the like. Body plans, 10 - 100+ mn bits. Neither is reasonable on blind mechanisms. Observed changes in populations, are well below 1,000 bits. In fact with realistic pop sizes, mut rates and success proportions, generation times etc, the time to fix significant numbers of muts rapidly becomes prohibitive. seven bases worth of change would be a good index of this. For instance try out 6 - 10 mn years, 2% of 3 bn bases, and reasonable pop and generation numbers for primates and you cannot find a realistic fit. In short, macro evo on the usual sorts of blind models is a serious issue. One that label and dismiss tactics does not answer to. KFkairosfocus
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
A-b: Nuclear processes are generally not viewed as Chemical ones, in other words while Chemical processes are certain types of physical interaction [typically involving valence shell electrons], other types of physical interaction are generally not categorised as chemical ones. Nuclear or particle fusion reactions are in this latter class. That is what I pointed out earlier and your attempt to suggest otherwise is without good grounds. KFkairosfocus
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
If micro-evolutionary events produced functional information instead of degrading preexisting functional information then your claim that it is not bogus to extrapolate from micro to macro would have merit, but as it is you are, willingly or not, grossly blind to the insurmountable problem at hand for Darwinists. When macro-evolution takes a final, it gets an "F" - Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory (Mendel's Accountant) Excerpt of Conclusion: This (computer) program (Mendel’s Accountant) is a powerful teaching and research tool. It reveals that all of the traditional theoretical problems that have been raised about evolutionary genetic theory are in fact very real and are empirically verifiable in a scientifically rigorous manner. As a consequence, evolutionary genetic theory now has no theoretical support—it is an indefensible scientific model. Rigorous analysis of evolutionary genetic theory consistently indicates that the entire enterprise is actually bankrupt. http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/06/god-versus-darwin-when-macro-evolution.html Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle - "Haldane's Ratchet" - Christopher L. Rupe and John C. Sanford - 2013 Excerpt:,,, the fundamental evolutionary problem historically known as "Haldane's Dilemma" is very real. Previous analyses have focused exclusively on beneficial mutations. When deleterious mutations were included in our simulations, using a realistic ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutation rate, deleterious fixations vastly outnumbered beneficial fixations. Because of this, the net effect of mutation fixation should clearly create a ratchet-type mechanism which should cause continuous loss of information and decline in the size of the functional genome. We name this phenomenon "Haldane's Ratchet". http://media.wix.com/ugd/a704d4_47bcf08eda0e4926a44a8ac9cbfa9c20.pdf "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." Lewin, R. (1980) "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire" Science, vol. 210, 21 November, p. 883 http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htmbornagain77
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
The terms micro and macro evolution have been used by evolutionary biologists, but not frequently. And when they do, it is usually used as a matter of convenience as opposed to describing two separate processes. But IDists have jumped on this simply because they have no legs to stand on if they try to argue against small scale evolutionary changes, because we have numerous examples of these changes. The idea that extrapolation is not an acceptable approach in science is simply bogus. It is used in every branch of science. For example, how many people have seen mountain chains formed? The theory for their formation is an extrapolation over thousands and hundreds of thousands of years based on relatively minute measurements of movements in the earth's crust. But does anyone seriously doubt the validity of the theory? When extrapolations are made in science, they are initially made based on relatively few data, and evolutionary theory is no different. However, the validity of these extrapolations is subsequently tested through several independent lines of inquiry. The IDist argument against extrapolating micro evolution to macro evolution is stuck in the 1800s when the validity of the extrapolation had not yet been tested. However, the validity of this extrapolation has been tested through numerous independent lines of inquiry (e,g., chemical, molecular, comparative anatomy, isotope ratios, DNA, biogeography, etc.), and none of these have cast significant doubt on the validity of the theory.Acartia_bogart
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: "Pardon but nuclear fusion is generally regarded as a PHYSICAL not a Chemical process". I know that I am splitting hairs here, but chemical processes are physical processes. They are nothing more than the physical interaction of atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. We perceive them differently simply because the chemical is at a much higher scale.Acartia_bogart
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
The Myth of 98% Genetic Similarity between Humans and Chimps (and chromosome fusion) - Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. https://vimeo.com/95287522 Human Origins(?) by Brian Thomas, M.S. - December 20, 2013 Excerpt: Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013. 1. Genetic similarity (70% instead of 98%) 2. beta-globin pseudogene (functional instead of leftover junk) 3. Chromosome 2 fusion site (encodes a functional feature within an important gene instead of a being a fusion site) All three key genetic pillars of human evolution (for Darwinists) turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function. http://www.icr.org/article/7867/ Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% - by Jeffrey P. Tomkins - February 20, 2013 Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion - 2013 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chromosome-fusionbornagain77
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
Ev: Pardon but nuclear fusion is generally regarded as a PHYSICAL not a Chemical process. Also, the technical core of VJT's remarks is what Dr Tour had to say. It seems you are indulging in if you can't ketch Cuffee, ketch 'im shirt. It remains the case that biology at cellular level rests on highly complex nanomachines that use chemistry in their functions, and in fact are also functionally specific, extremely complex, highly organised and information rich. The origin of such by blind chance and mechanical necessity is an assertion or assumption that has yet to pass the vera causa test, whilst prof Tour himself personally shows how intelligent design does such. You need to argue to the merits rather than to dismiss and disdain persons; persons who have plainly done their homework. KFkairosfocus
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Evolve- you don't even know what makes a chimp a chimp nor a human a human. And there isn't any evidence that we are the sum of our genomes. BTW evolution by natural means doesn't make any predictions and it cannot account for chimps and humans.Joe
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
///my own view is that humans and chimps share a common ancestry, but that God “intervened”/// Oh yeah, God intervened in a way that is indistinguishable from natural evolution! It fails because invoking God here becomes redundant, Torley. Humans and Chimps not only share homology, but also synteny, the same errors on chromosomes, the same pseudogenes, the same useless RNA viruses in the genome...and if you compare these with more distant apes, the genetic variation increases with decreasing relatedness. The pattern observed in most cases is exactly as evolution-by-natural-means predicts. Invoking God here is a useless and silly endeavour. But I know you're stubborn enough to not give up on it. Good luck.Evolve
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
And another substance-free comment by Evolve. Why isn't there any cases of microevolution that we can extrapolate to macroevolution? The beak of the finch-> microevolution that cannot add up to macroevolution. Anti-biotic resistance- same thing. Peppered moths? More of the same.Joe
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
'It’s the same with micro and macroevolution. At the fundamental level, there’s no distinction between the two. Mutations are the basis of all of evolution. What are mutations? Chemical changes of course.' Oh no, Evolve! Don't give ammunition to Professor Tour and his scandalously numerous admirers! He's supposed to be an ignoramus on matters biological, because he studies them where the action takes place - at their most fundamental level, the chemical level.Axel
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
^^^ I meant Nuclear fusion aboveEvolve
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
My gosh! Another ridiculously stupid post by vjtorley. He writes lengthy posts that are really painful to finish reading, because the level of inanity is horrible. What’s the chemical explanation of a star, Torley? Now what’s the chemical explanation of a galaxy? The chemical explanation for both are essentially the same - nuclear fission. But now you have to consider large-scale phenomena to understand and explain a galaxy. It’s the same with micro and macroevolution. At the fundamental level, there’s no distinction between the two. Mutations are the basis of all of evolution. What are mutations? Chemical changes of course. For e.g.: Cytosine becomes Uracil when a deamination reaction occurs. No need of Mr. God here. But to understand macroevolution, now you got to consider large-scale processes happening at the level of populations. However, the fundamental basis of macroevolution remains the same as microevolution - mutation. It’s that simple. The way you’re messing up simple concepts and then stubbornly clinging onto them is pathetic. I’m sorry.Evolve
July 3, 2014
July
07
Jul
3
03
2014
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
That's what I get for trying to do something from memory. ;)Mung
March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
<blockquote> place text here </blockquote>Mung
March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
The escape sequence must be terminated with a semicolon. For some reason the preview doesn't enforce this. &lt; = < &gt; = >Chance Ratcliff
March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
lol, well, it looked good in the preview! &lt - less than sign (shift+comma) &gt - greater than sign (shift+period)Mung
March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
franklin:
I’ll figure the blockquote thing out sometime
&ltblockquote&gt place text here &lt/blockquote&gtMung
March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
franklin: It's a reasonable bet that Matzke wishes to become a professor of evolutionary biology, since a Ph.D. in evolutionary theory is useless for any other occupation on the planet. But I concede that I don't know his plans. For all I know, his parents are rich, he doesn't need any money and he just gets a kick out of studying the stuff, or likes accumulating points with which to bash ID people. In any case, his future plans aren't important for the main thrust of my argument. I don't owe anyone an "apology" -- certainly not Matzke or Alan Fox. Both have behaved on the internet in discreditable ways, showing a great deal of intellectual dishonesty, and a stubborn pride that will rarely (close to never) grant a point in argument. Matzke has right here on this site misrepresented ID and ID proponents in a variety of ways, and defended indefensible misrepresentations of ID by the NCSE. He has been called on it, and refused to budge an inch. I have no intellectual respect for someone like that. I was taught by very deep philosophers of very great integrity and I despise all forms of intellectual dishonesty or even intellectual unfairness, and the anti-ID lobby, of which Matzke is one of the leaders, practices both. Other deep offenders are Shallit, Moran, Myers, Coyne, Miller, Scott. These people would all have failed graduate school in philosophy, if they had argued about evolution, teleology, design, the nature of science, etc. in philosophy class the way they argue about these things in the blogosphere and in their books and articles. In a philosophy seminar, arguments based on rhetoric and partisan bias are quickly diced to bits by professors and fellow grad students. You want me to congratulate Nick on his peer-reviewed articles? I already did, in a general way -- two or three times, even if I did it in third-person language. I can't be specific which articles, because Alan Fox never got back to me telling me which ones were peer-reviewed and which ones weren't. But it doesn't matter. Let's change the subject from Nick, Franklin. Since you are new here -- I think. Tell me: which ID books have you read -- not skimmed, or read negative reviews of -- in full? And what works of evolutionary theory have you read? Mayr? Dobzhansky? Gould? Dawkins? Shapiro? Orr? And have you read Darwin's Origin of Species in full? I'm not interested in talking about Matzke any more -- my whole point in mentioning him was to deflect attention from him. I'm more interested in talking about the issues -- mutation, selection, teleology, causality, the nature of nature, the nature of science, chance, design, etc. Care to offer your position on any of these matters? Or tell us your intellectual background -- the training and reading you bring to these issues, and what got you involved in the discussion?Timaeus
March 5, 2013
March
03
Mar
5
05
2013
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
timeaus: Anyhow, as I said, if Matzke has published several group articles, good for him. But that doesn’t make him one of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists. He has a long, long way to go before that will be true. (And it will never become true, if he doesn’t significantly reduce the time he spends in culture-war activity and increase the time he spends in reading and research.) I don't think Nick portrayed or declared himself to be 'one of the worlds leading evolutionary biologists'. That seems to be label you put on him. If you aren't even familiar with Nick's publication record how can you honestly speculate on what he should or should not be doing with his time let alone on how it will advance or stifle his career objectives...whatever it/they may be. timeaus: I’m just asking for a sense of proportion here. Matzke’s a grad student looking for his first job, not one of the leading expositors of evolutionary theory in the world today. I’ve also found his dialogical habits here on UD not to be admired — conceding points in argument is not his style, and one gets the strong impression that social/cultural victory is very important to him, whereas to a good scientist truth, not victory, is what should be important Have you not looked at or read the response of your compadres on many different threads?franklin
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT
timeaus: (first apologies I'll figure the blockquote thing out sometime): By that I meant the stage between the time one first starts publishing papers (which is often in graduate school) and the time one earns tenure. I don't know what nick's career goals but do you know for sure that he has expressed an interest in working in academia? I have no idea and it seems that a potential CV based on some assumptions might be wrong. It might be better just to compare them head-to-head at each phase of their career if that is actually a worthwhile endeavor. I see no value in projecting what Nick may or not produce over the next decade or so. timeaus: Sorry for expressing myself unclearly. Basically I was responding with some irritation to the sneer of Alan Fox, who haunts these internet sites making pronouncements that good science is against ID, but cannot produce a single scientific accomplishment of his own (won’t specify any articles he’s published, any degrees he has earned, any scientific research positions he has ever held) to justify how he can tell good science from bad. He was trying to slight Behe in comparison with Matzke, when his own accomplishments are — based on any evidence he has presented to the world — less than those of either. I’m weary of his hobbyist jibes, so I indulged in a careless reply. My apologies. false defenses are no defense at all. It's not me you have to apologize too. timeaus: As I’ve already said, if Matzke has published articles, I congratulate him. If? Why not. congratulate him for the publications you now know exit?franklin
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT
franklin: I'll clarify what I meant by "the stage of his career Matzke is in now." By that I meant the stage between the time one first starts publishing papers (which is often in graduate school) and the time one earns tenure. I therefore spoke inaccurately, and should have said, "Behe has published over 35 peer-reviewed papers, many of which were published during the period Matzke is in now, i.e., the pre-tenure period." I did not mean that Behe had published 35 papers while he was a grad student. He may have published some while he was a grad student; I do not know. You can write to him and ask him. But he himself has said that he has published over 35 peer-reviewed papers, in his former Amazon blog, now moved to UD. Sorry for expressing myself unclearly. Basically I was responding with some irritation to the sneer of Alan Fox, who haunts these internet sites making pronouncements that good science is against ID, but cannot produce a single scientific accomplishment of his own (won't specify any articles he's published, any degrees he has earned, any scientific research positions he has ever held) to justify how he can tell good science from bad. He was trying to slight Behe in comparison with Matzke, when his own accomplishments are -- based on any evidence he has presented to the world -- less than those of either. I'm weary of his hobbyist jibes, so I indulged in a careless reply. My apologies. As I've already said, if Matzke has published articles, I congratulate him. I'll make some brief comments on your other remarks. You say that experimental results should be written up briefly. Well, from the list of titles that was linked to, not all the articles were merely experimental results; many of them involved broader interpretive questions in evolutionary theory, and these take time to explain, as any article in history or philosophy takes time to set forth. I can understand why an article like "a new determination of the boiling point of sulfur" should be short rather than long-winded, but Matzke's evolutionary position makes very large claims about the novelty-creating power of neo-Darwinian mechanisms, and those claims aren't sufficiently justified by tiny, brief articles reporting isolated experimental results -- they require longer exposition which expresses a synthetic understanding. As for collegial research, I have nothing against it, but I am suspicious when someone claims to know his business and has *no* solo research. For a grad student, OK, I understand the situation -- a grad student is just learning the craft and may well have his first contributions as part of a team of profs and grad students. But eventually any scientist worth his salt will be able to do some research on his own. So I look forward to one day seeing *solo* articles by Matzke in Nature or some other journal. However, my point was not to blame Matzke for participating in team efforts; it was to point out that if five guys are responsible for the research, interpretation and write-up of a 6-page article, the reader is left wondering how much any particular individual contributed to any useful results. Regarding peer review, my point was that Alan Fox did not explain how he determined which articles were peer-reviewed. They may all have been; but Fox didn't say how he knew that. It also would have been nice if Fox had admitted that a good number of the "articles" he cited were not "scholarly" but popular. (The site, remember, is called "Google Scholar," not "Google Culture Warrior." But apparently it lists everything a scholar/scientist has published, regardless of type.) Anyhow, as I said, if Matzke has published several group articles, good for him. But that doesn't make him one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists. He has a long, long way to go before that will be true. (And it will never become true, if he doesn't significantly reduce the time he spends in culture-war activity and increase the time he spends in reading and research.) Matzke is prominent in the blogosphere, because of his visible role in the Dover Trial, for his detective work for the NCSE, and for his constant expression of his opinions. But at a big annual conference of 2,000 evolutionary biologists, most of whom aren't at all focused on ID, creationism, etc., he is just another young, unknown face in the crowd to most of those attending. Shapiro, Jablonka, etc. aren't rushing across the conference floor to congratulate him, or any other grad student, on his latest 6-page group article. I'm just asking for a sense of proportion here. Matzke's a grad student looking for his first job, not one of the leading expositors of evolutionary theory in the world today. I've also found his dialogical habits here on UD not to be admired -- conceding points in argument is not his style, and one gets the strong impression that social/cultural victory is very important to him, whereas to a good scientist truth, not victory, is what should be important. But I don't want to talk about Matzke any more. He will become what he will become, a great biologist, or a mediocre one, or a poor one, regardless of anything I say. But the polemical motivation which he took with him (learned partly from his NCSE friends) at the start of his graduate studies is not a healthy one; no scientist or scholar can easily guard against the corruption of pure thought that tends to happen when such motives are present.Timaeus
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
timeaus: I’m used to disciplines where an author generally does all the research and writing himself, and where the papers range from about 12 to about 40 pages in length. While this is likely true of philosophy (I'll accept your academic expertise here) it is not the norm for publications targetted at reporting experimental results. Brevity and conciseness are the rule of the day in reporting and discussing experiments and their results and science journal editors (and reviewers) insist that you pare down your manuscripts to the bare basics before it being accepted for publication. It is not uncommon in the biological sciences to have multiple collaborators and in this day and age it is encouraged over single-researchers conducting their work alone. timeaus: By the way, Mike Behe published over 35 peer-reviewed papers over several years, in his younger days, i.e., when he was in the stage of his career Matzke is in now You might want to recheck your assertion. Checking in on Web of Science I found that Behe published three (3) papers and one (1) meeting abstract while he was a grad student (1974-1979). Over the next 5 years I found that he published 8 manuscripts. That does not seem to jive with your assertion of Behe publishing 35 papers while he was at the stage of his career as N. Matzke is, i.e., a graduate student. I may be wrong about this but it doens't seem like it given the information that is available. There are several venues you can use to determine if a journal uses peer review or not and they are a valuable asset to have in your toolbox. Having published not one but two articles in Nature or a Nature associated journal is quite an accomplishment for a tenured scientist let alone a graduate student.franklin
March 4, 2013
March
03
Mar
4
04
2013
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply