Prominent NAS member trashes neo-Darwinism
| July 18, 2007 | Posted by scordova under Darwinism, Science |
Natural selection …is not the fundamental cause of evolution.
Science continues to destroy Darwinism. A prominent member of the National Academy of Sciences, Masatoshi Nei, trashed neo-Darwinism in the recent peer-reviewed article: The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution.
Haldane’s dilemma showed mathematically that natural selection could not be the major driving force of evolution. Haldane’s dilemma lead in part to the non-Darwinian theory of molecular evolution known as the “neutral theory of molecular evolution”. Neutral theory asserted natural selection was not the principal driving force of molecular evolution. However, when molecular neutral theory was presented to the world in the 1960′s, it was politically incorrect to assert the obvious consequence of the neutral theory of molecular evolution, namely: morphology, physiology, and practically anything else made of molecules would NOT be principally shaped by natural selection either.
In What are the speed limits of naturalistic evolution?, I pointed out:
And if Haldane’s dilemma were not enough of a blow to Darwinian evolution, in the 1960′s several population geneticists like Motoo Kimura demonstrated mathematically that the overwhelming majority of molecular evolution was non-Darwinian and invisible to natural selection. Lest he be found guilty for blasphemy, Kimura made an obligatory salute to Darwin by saying his non-Darwinian neutral theory “does not deny the role of natural selection in determining the course of adaptive evolution”. That’s right, according to Kimura, adaptive evolution is visible to natural selection while simultaneously molecular evolution is invisible to natural selection. Is such a position logical? No. Is it politically and intellectually expedient? Absolutely!
But now 4 decades later, the inevitable consequence of Haldane’s dilemma and Kimura’s neutral theory may be ending the uneasy truce between neo-Darwinists and neutralists.
Nei writes:
For the last six decades, the dominant theory of evolution has been neo-Darwinism, which was developed by the three founders of theoretical population genetics, Fisher (1), Wright (2), and Haldane (3), and was later supported by various evolutionists (4). Neo-Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolution,
….
In the last four decades, the study of molecular evolution has shown that a majority of amino acid substitutions in proteins are neutral or nearly neutral
…
However, most evolutionists still believe in neo-Darwinism with respect to phenotypic evolution and are not interested in neutral evolution (19,22).
…
Mayr (23) stated that neutral mutations apparently occur at the molecular level, but because they do not affect phenotypic characters, they are of little interest to evolutionists.
….By contrast, Nei (17, 24, 25) argued that because phenotypic characters are ultimately controlled by DNA sequences, both molecular and phenotypic evolution must occur in similar [non Darwinian] ways. He also suggested that a considerable portion of morphological evolution is caused by neutral or nearly neutral mutations, and the driving force of evolution is mutation at both molecular and phenotypic levels.
….
As mentioned in the introduction, a majority of current evolutionists believe in neo-Darwinism. In one of the most popular textbooks on evolution, Futuyma (ref. 20, p. 10) states that evolutionary change is a population process in which one genotype replaces other ones, and for this process to occur, mutation is quite ineffective because of its low rate of occurrence, whereas even the slightest intensity of natural selection can bring about substantial change in a realistic amount of time. He also states “Natural selection can account for both slight and great differences among species, and adaptations are traits that have been shaped by natural selection.” Although this type of statement is quite common in the evolutionary literature, it is obvious that any advantageous genotype is produced by mutation including all kinds of genetic changes. Natural selection occurs as a consequence of mutational production of different genotypes, and therefore it is not the fundamental cause of evolution.Historically, the word mutationism was used to refer to William Bateson’s saltationism or similar ideas, in which natural selection plays little role. Later Morgan (109) presented a more reasonable form of mutationism taking into account the role of natural selection. His view was abstract and based on a few lines of speculative arguments. However, recent molecular studies of phenotypic evolution support the basic ideas of his view and have extended it to a more comprehensive view presented in this article. If the new form of mutation theory described here is right, even in its crudest form, more emphasis should be given on the roles of mutation in the study of evolution.
Notes:
1. ID sympathizer Dr. John Davison, who has spent much of his recent life promoting the works of William Bateson, should be much encouraged with these developments. It was through Davison I learned of Bateson’s wonderful ideas.
2. Richard Dawkins wrote of Kimura in Blindwatchmaker. Dawkins argued Kimura’s ideas wouldn’t overturn Darwinism since Darwinism operated at the higher level of adaptation whereas Kimura’s non-Darwinian theory operated at the lower level of molecules. But the reductionists are now getting taste of their own medicine. If the Darwinism doesn’t operate at the molecular level, then why should we expect it to operate at much higher levels like morphology and physiology either?
3. Lewontin gives a powerful example of neutral evolution at the morphological level. Rhinos have either 1 horn or 2 horns. Did natural selection cause the evolution of one horn in one case, and 2 horns in another? Unlikely.
4. Salthe pointed out a fundamental contradiction in Fisher’s fundamental theorem of natural selection. Selection is the enemy of diversity. Salthe realized the obvious problem of trying to account for the abundance of diversity through a mechanism which reduces diversity.
5. At least 3 signatories of the Discovery Institute’s Dissent from Darwin list anticipated these recent developments. Davison, Salthe, and Ho. Ho managed to present echoes of these ideas 30 years ago in a peer-reviewed journal. See: An eloquent but bogus non-review by Dawkins.
a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance
Mae Wan Ho
197 Responses to Prominent NAS member trashes neo-Darwinism
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
that should be “bad design is no design”
acquiesce
I’ve often raised the point that bacteria are the fittest organisms on the planet by nearly any metric – biomass, number, persistence, or ability to survive in environmental extremes.
Ultimately however bacteria’s long term survival requires space travel. The earth has a finite span of time where it can support life. When that time is up even bacteria will perish. Their survival beyond that time requires locating a suitable new planet and transportation to it.
So the way I see it humanity is here to provide relocation services so that life doesn’t end when the earth does. I believe this is a cycle that repeats ad infinitum – the earth is neither the first nor the last planet in this cycle. Not only that but it is no accident either. Phyogenesis proceeding to a technological space-faring species is a biological imperative.
Bob,
In the other thread that kairosfocus has mentioned, you seemed more interested in playing gotcha with word games than in addressing the real issues. Here in this thread, you have hidden behind varying meanings of “fitness” and trying to not only shift the burden of proof, but raise it to a level that doesn’t even make sense. It is difficult to imagine how anyone who is honestly seeking truth would not be able to take a step back and evaluate these two threads and realize that there are some serious questions being asked of NDT, and only evasions are being given in response. I’m just wondering when your love of science and desire to be intellectually honest is going to bring you around to start considering this. Or are presupposed religious beliefs getting in your way?
When that time is up even bacteria will perish.
There are those who claim they can ride on light beams and live in comets.
Ditto. Bob?
c’mon Bob. Questions on the table. What say you?
How about we go for 200 posts?
THANK YOU!
Bob OH,
Casey Luskin was soliciting input on that very question (pseudogenes) in his review of Sean Carroll’s Book.
The Evolutionary Gospel According to Sean B. Carroll
He would welcome commentary on his pseudogene calculation. I have been unable to reconcile the linear model Casey uses versus something like Jukes-Cantor or the formula you gave.
My inability to reconcile it tells me there is a subtlety in this part of evolutionary theory which was deep enough in the weeds I did not realize it till now.
I would welcome your input on Casey’s pseudogene calculation as it does have bearing on our discussion of Nei’s paper.
I express again my gratitude for your willingness to spend time here at UD defending the non-ID position.
Though we disagree, I value your input.
Thanks again!
Salvador
Hi Trib:
[Re 179]:
Actually, it seems the argument is making spiral-progress at another level: that B seemingly is locked in circles when challenged on terms, assumptions and dynamics implies — or at least strongly suggests – that the NDT patterns of thought are . . . circular.
For, if there were simple, direct examples of functionally specified complexity and/or irreducible complexity in the Dembski and Behe senses incrementally emerging from the evidence of the fossil or current worlds, they would long since have been trumpeted and placed prominently all over the Internet. This, we do not see, but instead we hear of computer simulations [which are both intelligently designed and do not in fact generate complexity through RM + NS or the like; the smarts being front-loaded by the designers . . .] or else trivial things such as industrial melanism or Finch-beaks on drought-pluvial cycles. Then, a deeper look at the cases usually turns up more questions than answers, sometimes even outright manipulation and/or evident misrepresentation – cf. here, Wells’ Icons. (And note how the issues he raised were responded to – heavy on rhetoric, light on actual credible evidence and reasoned argument, joined to a quiet de-emphasis of the most notorious cases over time.)
And so, when someone from the Design view publishes on the matter at professional level, e.g. Meyer, we see further evidence that the case is not as advertised: the Editor of the Journal suffered slander and persecution amounting to unjustifiable and indefensible [but not recanted of] career-busting – and he is not even really a Design thinker!
This sounds more and more like an old Sci Fiction story on how “The Gostak distims the Doshes.†[The protagonist tries to figure out what each term means and only gets as far as finding that each is interpreted in terms of the others, in a circle. Of course it was originally meant as a parody on religion and religious wars, but instead it is telling with ever greater force against the NDT paradigm.]
Finally as to “bad design is not design . . .†or the like, well, design is design, and we are in no position to assess its “optimality†absent sufficient understanding of the objectives and constraints. E.g. a design that is optimal for one situation may be very brittle once the environment shifts, so some degree of “slack†and even tolerance for defects that come in through random noise may well be wise.
So, we are moving ever outward on the loops of the spiral . . .
Having said all that, I join with Sal in expressing appreciation that Bob has tried to engage the issue and has been willing to go through a few loops of the spiral with us.
GEM of TKI
H’mm: mod piled – was it the link to Icons?
I note in summary, that we should indeed appreciate Bob’s willingness to go through a few loops of the learning-spiral with us. Also, observing that his lock-in to a circle is evidence that perhaps the root problem is that NDT’s pop genetics models are circular, once their assumptions, dynamics and terms are questioned, and once they are put up against real world evidence from the fossil record and current life in ecosystems.
we are in no position to assess its “optimality†absent sufficient understanding of the objectives and constraints.
That is true.
BUT
For those that claim proof of design requires good design and “good design” requires efficiency, survivability and (hee hee) simplicity — bacteria should be more than enough evidence for them of a designer.
And dittos for hoping Bob sticks it out.
Dave Scot, that’s an interesting belief. Although without another directional mechanism which foregoes fitness to select for higher complexity, these space travelling bacteria aren’t going to be evolving into humans for the next saga.
I still await a response from Bob [see post – 178 & 185]
Acquiesce
I’m just going where the evidence leads. Life surviving by moving to more suitable locations when necessary is universal. The stage was perfectly set for the arrival of an industrial species and we seem to have an instinctive desire for building telescopes, spacecraft, and exploration. Seems a little too pat for an unplanned happenstance.
Directional mechanisms are inherent in DNA. The single celled egg that you once were contained a plan to diversify itself into scores of cell types, tissue types, and organs with nothing left to chance. That’s ontogenesis – a one-way, pre-planned, self-terminating process of diversification. I propose that phylogenesis was the same kind of process and it has terminated.
Hi DaveScot and Acquiesce,
Funny Denyse reviewing Tipler right now, as yesterday I wrote (and discarded) a reference to him in response to this conversation.
Dave’s idea that humanity is a necessity of this universe and our survival reminds me of Tipler’s ideas. He says that humans must and will develop technologies to halt the expansion of the universe. This is a necessity of the future because without it the expansion would entail breaking the laws of physics. Because the laws of physics cannot be broken, the expansion will be stopped, and humans will arrive at the ability to facilitate this.
The future determines the past in that the necessary and decided outcome must be accommodated by what comes before it.
As Dave says:
Nothing but teleology and design there.
Returning to the ongoing debate:
Cancer provides us a good example of both problems with NS I mentioned earlier in this thread. Namely, the selection of abnormal (more reproductively successful – fitter) cells, which have lost the ability to control their own reproduction – they have lost complexity and consequently become fitter. It also provides us evidence that NS leads ultimately to extinction through a blind (especially in foresight) approach to selection.
In a previous post I mentioned the consequences of a higher organism evolving the enzyme needed to efficiently digest cellulose and convert this into offspring – the long-term results would likely end up producing the extinction of all higher organisms including itself (for the short-term benefit of the species). NS, being unintelligent in its selection policy would blindly select this new trait because the selective value (the numbers of surviving offspring) would increase dramatically.
Thus, without constructive mutations, basic types of organisms are lost because NS evolves them (through their sub categories) to become increasingly specialized for a certain ecological niche at the expense of their overall generalization. With constructive mutations, NS evolves organisms to greater levels of fitness, producing imbalance and ultimately a total collapse of our ecosystem.
I still await a response from Bob [see post – 178 & 185]
The trouble with the blind-watchmaker analogy, is that he’s not just blind, but totally devoid of intelligence and foresight: lacking the materials (in the form of constructive mutations) to produce the watch: lacking the functional continuums (requiring his first blind move to produce function – when it cannot): and lacking even the inclination to produce a watch (favouring much simpler, more evolutionarily efficient designs).
[...] Masatoshi Nei is extending Kimura’s ideas to domains outside of molecular evolution. See: Prominent NAS member trashes neo-Darwinism These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web [...]