Uncommon Descent Contest Question 21 reposted What if Darwin’s theory only works 6 percent of the time?
| March 14, 2010 | Posted by O'Leary under speciation, Uncommon Descent Contest |
(Note: There was a problem posting entry comments to the original post, so I am reposting this – I think, very interesting – question to give others a chance. I have posted a link from the previous post to this one for purposes of entry. All previous entries will be judged, so no need to repost. If you have trouble posting, contact us at [email protected] )
Here’s an interesting article in New Scientist by Bob Holmes on a new approach to how animals become separate species (“Accidental origins: Where species come from”, March 10, 2010):
Everywhere you look in nature, you can see evidence of natural selection at work in the adaptation of species to their environment. Surprisingly though, natural selection may have little role to play in one of the key steps of evolution – the origin of new species. Instead it would appear that speciation is merely an accident of fate.So, at least, says Mark Pagel, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Reading, UK. If his controversial claim proves correct, then the broad canvas of life – the profusion of beetles and rodents, the dearth of primates, and so on – may have less to do with the guiding hand of natural selection and more to do with evolutionary accident-proneness.
[ ... ]
“When it works, it works remarkably well,” he says. “But it only works in about 6 per cent of cases. It doesn’t seem to be a general way that groups of species fill out their niches.”
Then Darwin’s theory just barely makes it to statistical significance, conventionally given as 4 per cent.
The otherwise most informative article is marred by the constant need to claim that Darwin was not wrong – but obviously, if Pagels is right, Darwin was indeed wrong, and so are all the people fronting his cause. Natural selection acting on random mutation was, precisely, Darwin’s proposed mechanism.
No one supposes that natural selection doesn’t occur. But is it the main driver of new species, as Darwin thought, and Pagels doubts?
Pagels dances very nervously indeed around that point (presumably from fear of joining the Expelled, given that his genome research has failed to back Darwin up.
So, for a free copy of Expelled, which details what happened to a variety of people who questioned establishment Darwinism, based on its failures of evidence, read the article and provide the best answer to this question: What do you think of Pagels’s evidence? Is it critical? Is he just blowing smoke? Will he be forced to recant?
Here are the contest rules, not many or difficult. The main thing is 400 words or less. Winners receive a certificate verifying their win as well as the prize. Winners must provide me with a valid postal address, though it need not be theirs. A winner’s name is never added to a mailing list. There is no mailing list. Have fun!
65 Responses to Uncommon Descent Contest Question 21 reposted What if Darwin’s theory only works 6 percent of the time?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
bornagain77:
bornagain,
See this.
But your response shows that you’re missing the point of scordova’s comment. He presumes that life descended from a single species, and then attempts to show that this presumption leads to a logical contradiction:
I already explained why this argument fails, but let me try again, this time by analogy.
Imagine you’re filling a tub from a firehose. The tub has a tiny leak. Will it ever overflow?
By scordova’s logic, the answer is no. After all, how could a leaky tub ever overflow? It’s leaking!
If selection is the winnower of diversity it cannot logically be the generator of diversity, period.
We have blind cave fish and we have seeing cave fish. The origin of the eye is not explained by selection but by what ever mutated or created the eye in the first place. Selection can only act on features that exists, not those that don’t.
One might argue, the eye was formed because one lineage split off into it’s own ecological niche and then specialized into that niche. Maybe so, or maybe not, but for sure splitting off ensures the different lines don’t compete, and thus one could argue evolution worked because competition between the lineages was prevented! Origin of species by means of non-competition of lineages! Not too far from Pagelism!
Selection can only be asserted when there is a reduction of diversity such as supposedly with Kettlewell butterflies or Darwin’s finches (and even then there are some questions). When there is diversification, there is the presumed absence of selection, since new phenotypes are not being selected against.
But even though lack of diversity is a necessary condition to establish selection, it is not a sufficient one to establish selection. Genetic drift and population bottle necks can cause homogenetity in the population which may at first glance cause one to mistakenly presume the action of selection. Thus it is possible the eye evolved via mutation in the absence of selection. There is plenty of observed molecular evolution without selection. Observing selection is the exception, not the rule, as Pagel is discovering.
Pelagius,
a talk origins link??? I certainly hope this is not your main source for what you consider irrefutable information on the “fact” of evolution. Since the first reference listed on the link was by Lenski, let’s dig a little deeper into Lenski’s actual experimental work and see what he has actually established.
Lenski claims to have “evolved” a citrate ability in e-coli, yet when scrutinized it is found his work reflects the principle of Genetic Entropy:
These following articles refute Lenski’s supposed “evolution” of the citrate ability for the E-Coli bacteria after 20,000 generations of the E-Coli:
Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli – Michael Behe
Excerpt: As Lenski put it, “The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions.” (1) Other workers (cited by Lenski) in the past several decades have also identified mutant E. coli that could use citrate as a food source. In one instance the mutation wasn’t tracked down. (2) In another instance a protein coded by a gene called citT, which normally transports citrate in the absence of oxygen, was overexpressed. (3) The overexpressed protein allowed E. coli to grow on citrate in the presence of oxygen. It seems likely that Lenski’s mutant will turn out to be either this gene or another of the bacterium’s citrate-using genes, tweaked a bit to allow it to transport citrate in the presence of oxygen. (He hasn’t yet tracked down the mutation.),,, If Lenski’s results are about the best we’ve seen evolution do, then there’s no reason to believe evolution could produce many of the complex biological features we see in the cell.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/.....96N278Z93O
Lenski’s e-coli – Analysis of Genetic Entropy
Excerpt: Mutants of E. coli obtained after 20,000 generations at 37°C were less “fit” than the wild-type strain when cultivated at either 20°C or 42°C. Other E. coli mutants obtained after 20,000 generations in medium where glucose was their sole catabolite tended to lose the ability to catabolize other carbohydrates. Such a reduction can be beneficially selected only as long as the organism remains in that constant environment. Ultimately, the genetic effect of these mutations is a loss of a function useful for one type of environment as a trade-off for adaptation to a different environment.
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....n-bacteria
Lenski’s Citrate E-Coli – Disproof of “Convergent” Evolution – Hugh Ross – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....evolution/
Upon closer inspection, it seems Lenski’s “cuddled” E. coli are actually headed for “genetic meltdown” instead of evolving into something better.
New Work by Richard Lenski:
Excerpt: Interestingly, in this paper they report that the E. coli strain became a “mutator.” That means it lost at least some of its ability to repair its DNA, so mutations are accumulating now at a rate about seventy times faster than normal.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....enski.html
In fact, trying to narrow down an actual hard number for the “truly” beneficial mutation rate is what Dr. Behe did in this following book:
“The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism”
http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evo.....0743296206
A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-mic.....-evolution
Dr. Behe states in The Edge of Evolution on page 135:
“Generating a single new cellular protein-protein binding site (in other words, generating a truly beneficial mutational event that would actually explain the generation of the complex molecular machinery we see in life) is of the same order of difficulty or worse than the development of chloroquine resistance in the malarial parasite.”
That order of difficulty is put at 10^20 replications of the malarial parasite by Dr. Behe. This number comes from direct empirical observation. double that is 10^40. Thus since there have been less that 10^40 cells on the earth, Behe conservatively sets “The Edge” at 2 protein-protein binding sites.
Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth Shies Away from Intelligent Design but Unwittingly Vindicates Michael Behe – Oct. 2009
Excerpt: The rarity of chloroquine resistance is not in question. In fact, Behe’s statistic that it occurs only once in every 10^20 cases was derived from public health statistical data, published by an authority in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The extreme rareness of chloroquine resistance is not a negotiable data point; it is an observed fact.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....est_s.html
scordova:
Here’s what I wrote, with the part you omitted in bold:
The tub overflows even though water is draining through the leak. Why? Because the firehose is adding water faster than the leak is removing it.
Net diversity increases even though selection winnows it. Why? Because mutation creates more diversity than selection eliminates.