New Book on Arguing for Evolution

_{Cornelius Hunter

January 19, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Did you know that helping is evidence for evolution? As Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner explain in their new book Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science, this and most everything else in biology proves evolution to be an undeniable fact. Altruism, they explain, may seem to be a “problem” for evolution. (They put “problem” in quotes because, of course, there are no realproblems for evolution. All those false predictions are simply explained by adjusting the theory.) In this case, most acts of so-called altruism are “anything but.” If an individual sounds an alarm to warn the others or dies to save the group, it is really just another evolutionary calculation. Does not such risky behavior maximize the chances that the all important genes will be propagated to the next generation? And so falling on hand grenades may seem to be a noble, heroic act, but actually it is simply a product of natural selection. As John Haldane once put it, “I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins.” Read more

Comments

BTW when have we observed any fixation rates? Hint- never.Joe_{January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Unfortunately you don't have anything to support your claim that non-functional genetic markers can stay around for 50-100 million years. The problem is there isn't any genetic data to link to the transformations required. And common descent is baraminology.
A parent, or a progenitor, in biology, would have to provide some genetic material directly to its offspring or recipient, to be such.
Right the designer provided the gentic material directly to the giraffes. Also read "Why is a Fly Not a Horse?" by geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti.Joe_{January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

And a progenitor does not have to be a direct ancestor.
Grief, you still wriggling round on that one? Yes, it does. A parent, or a progenitor, in biology, would have to provide some genetic material directly to its offspring or recipient, to be such. In all other senses, it is just you wriggling around on a semantic hook of your own design.
And your position cannot explain non-functional genetic markers staying around for eons of generations.
Yes it can, Joe. Neutral fixation and a mutation rate gentle enough to ensure that these things hang around over the timeframe that these things are used for. Obviously, we can't use degraded markers, so we use the ones that aren't. They don't last forever, but 50-100 million years, no problem.
The concept of universal common descent is useless to science because all it is is throwing vast amounts of time at slight variations.
Whatever use UNIVERSAL common descent may be to science, the concept of common descent is extremely useful. And "massively empirically confirmed", comme on dit. If I saw the word "outragei=ous" in a text, and then saw it again elsewhere, it would be a compelling indicator of common descent - copying, rather than separate origin. And that's what a lot of the nonfunctional markers amount to. It is desperation to deny this evidence, either by shouting "common design" or by insisting "they would have degraded". They haven't degraded, because we can detect them. Or, what is it we are detecting in our naivete? It can't ALL be common design. Speling erers. Repeats repeats repeats. snoisrevnI. Disconxxxxxtinuities. Transionposits. Lot's of 'em. Shedloads.Chas D_{January 23, 2012
January
01
Jan
23
23
2012
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Evidence Chas- Endosymbiosis only explains mitochaondria nad chloroplasts. And tehn still isn't any way to test that claim. So no, I don't deny it. It is just that it is an untestable claim. As for dreaming up, well that is all your position has. And a progenitor does not have to be a direct ancestor. And your position cannot explain non-functional genetic markers staying around for eons of generations. The concept of universal common descent is useless to science because all it is is throwing vast amounts of time at slight variations.Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

From those 8 that got off the boat, you mean?
Before Joe goes off on one (not that it makes much difference), I will admit that this is a bit of a nonsequitur!Chas D_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Umm long term descent of humans has only led to more humans.
From those 8 that got off the boat, you mean? I think ID is trying to be taken seriously, Joe.
Long term descent of prokaryotes only leads to more prokaryotes.
And? We sit and stare at prokaryotes and they never give rise to giraffes. Well hoo-ey sir, I think you've just found a fatal flaw in the theory of evolution. Endosymbiosis. Major discontinuity in the history of life and - arguably - non-Darwinian (as in "not gradual", and "messes up the naive Tree of Life"). A one-off association of genomes at the base of the whole eukaryote clade. This does not, routinely, throw up giraffes, but the keyword is progression. We don't see it before our very eyes. We don't see the continents move or the stars recede either. I could have sworn it took the same time to fly to the States last year as it did 10 years previously. Continental drift - huh! I know you don't buy endosymbiosis - Denial-of-the-Month for November, I recall - but then you don't really accept anything other than what you can dream up.
And the current consensus can’t support its claims.
The claim that all giraffes had parents needs support? Isn't it kind of obvious? If you think about how giraffes happen. There's this mummy and daddy giraffe, ya see, and they love each other very much, and ... but no, that process being responsible for all of giraffe-kind and many, many generations prior is far too much of a stretch. We need a 'poof' and Zarg magics a fully grown diploid organism into being. Or, creates a zygote from genes that have never tried making a giraffe before and nurtures it in a surrogate. Ouch.
The current consensus holds the outragei=ous position that our existence is nothing more than accumulations of accidents.
So the consensus position on all giraffes having parents is invalidated by the fact that a consensus (which may or may not include all the individuals in the first consensus) holds another position about the mechanisms of change. The consensus is that we need oxygen to stay alive; is that wrong too?
As for “parent” obvioulsy you don’t know how to read a dictionary. Think “progenitor”….
A progenitor, certainly biologically speaking, is a direct ancestor. A direct genetic ancestor. One which, furthermore, would have to exist in order to explain the nonfunctional genetic markers that appear for all the world to have passed down lines of actual descent. There aren't any discontinuities in lines of descent at this level, Joe. If you think there are, find 'em.Chas D_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Well the HUMAN falling on the grenade is a HUMAN too. So self-sacrifice is not an adequate purpose. In a Darwinian sense you should get out of there and allow those who can't to suffer the pain of death. That would be natural selection.Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

Chas D- Your position does not have any explanation for meiosis. IOW biology is definitely the wrong subject for you as you think imagination = evidence. Ya see your position can't even explain cellular differentiation beyond saying "lookie thar".Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Umm long term descent of humans has only led to more humans. Long term descent of prokaryotes only leads to more prokaryotes. And the current consensus can't support its claims. The current consensus holds the outragei=ous position that our existence is nothing more than accumulations of accidents. As for "parent" obvioulsy you don't know how to read a dictionary. Think "progenitor"....Joe_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

Genetics is no friend of universal common descent.
It is hardly its enemy! Long-term descent is only a matter of genetics. Genes are passed from parent to offspring, not phenotypes. The "G" in HGT is gene transfer, even though it can scramble the vertical phylogeny. By both means - vertical and horizontal - genes commonly descend. The current consensus is that all giraffes had parents. This is not an outrageous position to hold. It would be the case for your imaginary "first giraffe" also - ie, there wasn't one. Nor is it giraffes all the way down. I know that only leaves one option in your mind, but there is another. Would you like me to tell you what it is?Chas D_{January 22, 2012
January
01
Jan
22
22
2012
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT}

Genetics is no friend of universal common descent.Joe_{January 21, 2012
January
01
Jan
21
21
2012
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

Your understanding of things appears to be lacking any understanding. Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary…
OK, will do. I think I might struggle to find a definition of 'parent', in any biological sense, if no DNA from it is replicated, but I'll give it a go. Zarg of Epsilon 6, the father of all giraffes, cooked 'em up in a petri dish. Can I suggest an elementary textbook of genetics, for your part?Chas D_{January 21, 2012
January
01
Jan
21
21
2012
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

It is true and you aren't anyone to doubt anyone's competence. As for the differences betweem ny PoV and Creationists- I do not accept the Bible as any kind of authority whereas their position relies solely on it. And aliens are just ONE possibilty. And a designer would be a parent…
Not in any sense that I understand the word...
Your understanding of things appears to be lacking any understanding. Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary...Joe_{January 21, 2012
January
01
Jan
21
21
2012
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Well Chas D, there are geneticists who agree with me. There are developmental biologists who agree with me.
If this were true, I would severely doubt their competence. I do begin to wonder what distinguishes your position as ... umm ... an "ID guy" from that of a creationist. Is it the aliens?
And a designer would be a parent…
Not in any sense that I understand the word, unless you are suggesting something decidedly gross.Chas D_{January 21, 2012
January
01
Jan
21
21
2012
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Well Chas D, there are geneticists who agree with me. There are developmental biologists who agree with me. And a designer would be a parent...Joe_{January 21, 2012
January
01
Jan
21
21
2012
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

One is more of a “cell” than the other. And neither is really a cell because neither can reproduce on its own. The main problem is every other cell in a metazoan divides via mitosis. So you need to explain the origin of meiosis via stochastic processes. Good luck with that.
Joe, you are seriously confused. You think the explanation has to start with anisogamy (sperm/egg size distinction) and obligate diploidy? Or we start with multicellularity, and THEN evolve meiosis? Gah. Seriously, I think biology is the wrong subject for you. Now, Tiddles, about this proof of congruent triangles ...Chas D_{January 21, 2012
January
01
Jan
21
21
2012
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

The problem is there isn’t any genetic data that shows the transformations required to get a giraffe from a non-giraffe) are even possible.
Therefore they are impossible? I think the problem may be your shaky species concept and grasp of genetics. I wonder how you envisage the creation of the 'first giraffe', from a mechanistic standpoint? If we follow the lineage from giraffe backwards, what do we come to? A giraffe with no parents?Chas D_{January 21, 2012
January
01
Jan
21
21
2012
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Chas D, There isn't any evidence that a giraffe "evolved" from anything other than a giraffe. The problem is there isn't any genetic data that shows the transformations required to get a giraffe from a non-giraffe) are even possible.Joe_{January 21, 2012
January
01
Jan
21
21
2012
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Chas D:
A better way to look at it is two cells with a genome each.
One is more of a "cell" than the other. And neither is really a cell because neither can reproduce on its own. The main problem is every other cell in a metazoan divides via mitosis. So you need to explain the origin of meiosis via stochastic processes. Good luck with that.Joe_{January 21, 2012
January
01
Jan
21
21
2012
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

And ... (in what may be my final post on the matter, since I'm not really after that toaster!) one could try looking at it from this angle: Suppose we have a time-teleporter. First we are able to teleport to the giraffe/tapir split. We see this organism that (through DNA testing) we determine to be the common ancestor. Is there any prediction we can make about what it will NOT evolve into, left to its own devices? Can we, for example, exclude the giraffe on any grounds? Or, for that matter, the tapir? We can then teleport to any point between then and now, and try and establish what went on. There are now two (probably more) lineages, one of which seems to be lengthening in the neck in a variant manner in the population. By exhaustive experimentation, we identify a gene, necklen1, that functions in development to lengthen the neck. There must be other genes, since this must have an effect on the birth canal, but we focus on this gene and determine its selective advantage in the population. We try and determine the source of that advantage ... and can't. Every time we run the experiment, necklen1+ individuals produce more offspring than necklen1-. Yet can we establish causation? It is a statistical effect. All the details of individual lives that necklen1+ individuals encounter must factor in. We could look at high trees, or better luck with the ladies, or spotting predators ... It's a bit of each, it's all and none of them. We come rushing back to the future: "Scott! Scott! We found one of the genes!". "Really? And what was its advantage?" "Errr ... 1.001".Chas D_{January 21, 2012
January
01
Jan
21
21
2012
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

Your position has nothing on how a metazoan will develop from the union of two single “cells” with 1/2 a genome.
A better way to look at it is two cells with a genome each. Nonetheless, I suspect the time spent outlining a detailed analysis of a path from haploidy to cyclic haploid/diploidy, and beyond to metazoan haploid/diploid asymmetry and gender differentiation, might actually be better spent teaching geometry to my cat.Chas D_{January 21, 2012
January
01
Jan
21
21
2012
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

Scott: It is not both an observation and an explanation, because it does not explain. Sorry, when I said "it's both", I meant "evolution is (loosely put) the change and the mechanisms of change". But actually it does explain, even if that explanation is not the kind you'd like. Evolution explains in general terms how species cannot avoid changing, and also how such change may be constrained into certain kinds of 'adaptive channel'. But again, you want some reconstruction of history. Can a geneticist explain why Hitler had the genetic makeup he did? Half the genes each from mum and dad, recombination, linkage blah de blah. No, explain something about his genetic makeup! So genetics is bunk, it has no explanatory power then. Tapirs and giraffes descended from a common ancestor, not a tapir. Chance is a legitimate explanation for divergence, and for anaganesis (change in a lineage). Why giraffes rather than some other form descended from the giraffe/tapir common ancestor? I don't know what other forms are possible. Why you rather than one of the billions of possible combinations of your genes (half of them girls)? Chance. You allow chance to operate without dismissing genetics for its failure to explain that little conundrum. But evolution must have a step by step explanation for THIS form. Evolution derives from genetics. It is constrained - it doesn't start from random points and leap round phase space like a mad bastard. But it is mostly governed by chance - chance mutation, chance meetings with predators and mates, stochastic fixation. Chance IS an explanation. As is contingency. But we don't know the structure of the adaptive landscapes that giraffes could have explored, and we don't know why the dead giraffes died or the survivors survived. We only have the form of the survivors, not the detail of the lives their ancestors led and the threats they survived and succumbed to.Chas D_{January 21, 2012
January
01
Jan
21
21
2012
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

Scott, Since you seem to be avoiding my central point, let me stress it:
Who, for example, would postulate a magic barrier to the pebble’s motion, and suggest that an intelligent pebble mover must have been involved in order to overcome the magic barrier? And not just any intelligent pebble mover, but one who moves pebbles exactly as they would have been moved according to the original theory, had the magic barrier not been there?
In case translation is necessary:
Who, for example, would postulate a magic barrier to accumulated microevolutionary change, and suggest that an intelligent designer must have been involved in order to overcome the magic barrier? And not just any intelligent designer, but one who operates in exactly the same way that evolution would have operated, had the magic barrier not been there?
champignon_{January 20, 2012
January
01
Jan
20
20
2012
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Scott, I wish I could take credit for the 'Rumpelstiltskin dance' comment, but that was Chas D's memorable description. I see it hit a nerve.champignon_{January 20, 2012
January
01
Jan
20
20
2012
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Champignon,
it’s clear that the pebble’s location is compatible with the theory. And since the theory does such a splendid job of explaining the arrangement of this fluvial deposit, as well as deposits all over the world, why challenge it?
You're begging the question. You're asserting that the giraffe, for example, fits the theory just like the pebble in the river is compatible with its respective theory. Except that's your conclusion. You're just reasserting it, begging the question. The giraffe does fit the theory, within reason, if you're talking common descent. There may be something to debate there, but it doesn't interest me. If you're not talking about common descent, but rather an explanation of how giraffes descended from an ancestor similar to a tapir, then no, none of the mechanisms proposed to explain such things do in fact explain it. I mean that in two ways. There is no specific pathway of variations and selections. You may think I'm harping on that, but that's not really my point at all. Primarily what I mean is that there is no basis for considering such mechanisms adequate to explain the giraffe's neck and its associated cardiovascular developments. There's no empirical basis for concluding, even provisionally, that an incremental process of variation and selection could produce such an extensive series of coordinated, cooperating modifications. There's also no reason why they should. You can and will assert repeatedly that such mechanisms effect such results. Over the course of several weeks you have offered every imaginable objection, excuse, or distraction to avoid explaining what empirical evidence would influence someone to share this belief. Occasionally you even accuse me of being unreasonable, as if there should be some charitable basis, some special pleading to justify the acceptance of your premise. I'm pretty sure you've appealed to authority. Come to think of it, I even declared victory on this matter some time back and accepted your implicit concession. I did, what was it you said, a Rumpelstiltskin dance. I suppose I'll just have to do it again.ScottAndrews2_{January 20, 2012
January
01
Jan
20
20
2012
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Scott, Yes, most people wouldn't bother debating the reasons for the pebble's location. Even if they lacked a detailed scenario, it's clear that the pebble's location is compatible with the theory. And since the theory does such a splendid job of explaining the arrangement of this fluvial deposit, as well as deposits all over the world, why challenge it? Who, for example, would postulate a magic barrier to the pebble's motion, and suggest that an intelligent pebble mover must have been involved in order to overcome the magic barrier? And not just any intelligent pebble mover, but one who moves pebbles exactly as they would have been moved according to the original theory, had the magic barrier not been there?champignon_{January 20, 2012
January
01
Jan
20
20
2012
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Champignon, If the only way you can rationalize this is to liken the genetic and functional difference between a tapir and a giraffe to the spatial difference between possible locations of a pebble then you're out of gas. This is a rhetorical question. I really hope you think about it rather than trying to answer it: Why isn't there a debate forum out there with a picture of a pebble in a stream, where people spend hours debating what precisely landed the pebble in that exact spot rather than several inches or feet away? Could it be because it's entirely unremarkable and everyone agrees that water moves pebbles, making it a useless illustration in a discussion of something that is remarkable and the cause of which is debatable? What were you hoping to illuminate with it?ScottAndrews2_{January 20, 2012
January
01
Jan
20
20
2012
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Scott,
We can observe that giraffes are descended from tapirs and have not the slightest clue why some of the descendants of tapirs are giraffes. In fact, we don’t. It is unexplained. That is the difference between observation and explanation.
We can observe that the pebble is here and have not the slightest clue why it's not one meter upstream. It is unexplained. That is the difference between observation and explanation. Hydraulic theory is therefore not an explanation.champignon_{January 20, 2012
January
01
Jan
20
20
2012
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Chas, It is not both an observation and an explanation, because it does not explain. Knowing that a giraffe is descended from a tapir or its cousin does not explain how the features it has came about.
The point for tapir/giraffe divergence is that this mutation-fixation process is only anchored by the ability of a current population to ‘get at’ each other.
It is also "anchored" to the range of configurations that are accessible to a population of tapirs by means of evolutionary mechanisms. We can observe that giraffes are descended from tapirs and have not the slightest clue why some of the descendants of tapirs are giraffes. In fact, we don't. It is unexplained. That is the difference between observation and explanation.ScottAndrews2_{January 20, 2012
January
01
Jan
20
20
2012
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Scott,
You’re fond of pointing out that evolution is (loosely put) the change, not the mechanisms of change. That’s fine, but then why do so many seem to think of it as an explanation rather than an observation?
Yep, it's both! I think the essence of all of it boils down to descent - one individual gives rise to others, which give rise to .... If that's all that happens - all the individuals are identical - then I guess there's no evolution, although there is common descent. But if we get some kind of change in the genetics of one individual, that in itself is evolution. A lot of people fight shy of that, because (as I have seen it put) it changes the game from "making evolution too big to see, to making it too small to miss". People would be right to suspect that, if it was some kind of trick, but technically, it is evolution, even that low-level. So that is one mechanism of evolution: mutation. Next we get the descendants of this first mutant. They could be snuffed out - it is deleterious, or just unlucky - or they could start to gain a toe-hold in the population. Descendants of the first mutant start to take over the population, in a wibbly random-walk kind of way. This can be both selection and drift - differential output and/or the influence of chance. As far as the lineage of any organism possessing the mutation is concerned, when an organism looks up its family tree, it 'sees' a series of ancestors all with the mutation, until it gets to that first mutant. That mutation in that ancestor was the moment the gene changed. Everything else is simply moving towards more and more of the population being descended from that ancestor, and fewer and fewer not. It's a process of elimination, not change per se. But it is commonly regarded as "evolution" - change in allele frequency. So ... clear as mud, sorry! The point for tapir/giraffe divergence is that this mutation-fixation process is only anchored by the ability of a current population to 'get at' each other. As soon as you get isolation - split a population in two - the mutations either side are not shared, and nor is the fixation process. This completely uncouples them, and divergence appears to be a common result. I think this is why Darwin did not explain the Origin of Species so well - he was looking for a role for Natural Selection, and could not find it. The real answer is chance. And that's why concrete answers are so elusive. Chance is everywhere, and that don't half mess with your causality! But chance is a legitimate explanation for why two things are divergent. Channelled chance, one could say. Selection keeps them from just disintegrating, genetically, while physical limitations on possible forms stop them from going just anywhere in genetic space. I think the final point - why not just keep on producing tapirs - relates to our love of categories. Current organisms are of a particular form, and we see that as "tapir-form". But that is a lateral compartment. Organisms are just produced sequentially, and the mechanism that holds a species round a current form - interbreeding - does not operate in time. Species aren't anchored in time - or not, at least, as far as can be detected!Chas D_{January 20, 2012
January
01
Jan
20
20
2012
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply