Macro-Evolution

[RufusAtticus]

Sinai,

There is actually not a battle raging over gradualism at all. PE doesn't claim that gradual evolution doesn't happen. Punc Eq uses population-level effects to explain the observed stasis in the fossil record. Many scientists originally had a problem with this (and still do) because they read more into it then Gould and Eldridge meant. Most of the current debate is whether, stasis is the universal trait of fossil lineages.

Gould and Eldridge developed Punc Eq for paleontologists. When they first presented it, the “fossil” community was concerned mostly about determining the relationships between organisms, not large-scale observations about the action of evolution. They looked at a lot of fossil data and concluded that the record doesn’t show many, if any at all, gradual events. What they did see is that the morphology of a species tended to stay constant. Actually, it’s more like a set range of variation. When you do see evolution in the fossil record, it is an abrupt jump.

This is because the fossil record can only sample from a population; it cannot record the entire population. In blind sampling, you expect to get the more common types and not get the rare types. Now, population biologists have shown that evolutionary change is most likely to occur in isolated populations. In other words, it’s the rare individuals (exceptional ones, you might say) that are responsible for change. Gould and Eldridge have argued correctly (in my opinion) that the structure of the fossil record is the result of sampling such population level effects as extinction and recolonization. Punc. Eq. doesn’t say that evolution doesn’t happen gradually. It just says that we should not expect to find fine-grained gradual transitions between species, reflected in the fossil record.

Edited to add:

I would also like to point out that these, physicists and mathematicians you are talking about are not authorities on evolutionary processes. They usually reject evolution (or parts of it) out of ignorance and theological/philosophical issues, not science. That's okay until they start acting like they know more about the subject then scientists who actually study it.

A similar thing would be biologists arguing that atoms don’t have nuclei or that perpetual motion machines do exist.

The skills and knowledge required to realize whether or not you’re competent in a subject are, sadly, the same skills and knowledge required to be competent.

That’s why we have engineers, dentists, and nurses but not a single population biologist saying that they know that evolution is completely wrong.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Punc Eq uses population-level effects to explain the observed stasis in the fossil record. Many scientists originally had a problem with this (and still do) because they read more into it then Gould and Eldridge meant. Most of the current debate is whether, stasis is the universal trait of fossil lineages.

Gould and Eldridge developed Punc Eq for paleontologists....They looked at a lot of fossil data and concluded that the record doesn’t show many, if any at all, gradual events. What they did see is that the morphology of a species tended to stay constant. Actually, it’s more like a set range of variation. When you do see evolution in the fossil record, it is an abrupt jump....Now, population biologists have shown that evolutionary change is most likely to occur in isolated populations. In other words, it’s the rare individuals (exceptional ones, you might say) that are responsible for change. Gould and Eldridge have argued correctly (in my opinion) that the structure of the fossil record is the result of sampling such population level effects as extinction and recolonization. Punc. Eq. doesn’t say that evolution doesn’t happen gradually. It just says that we should not expect to find fine-grained gradual transitions between species, reflected in the fossil record.

Again, RufusAtticus, thank you for your post. I think we are largely saying about the same thing. Your principal point is that "Punc. Eq. doesn't say that evolution doesn't happen gradually." I didn't say that it does; I merely pointed out that there has been the disagreement among scientists I mentioned in my prior posts. You also said the same thing, though you also gave a good explanation for why you believe that "we should not expect to find fine-grained gradual transitions between species, reflected in the fossil record."

I would also like to point out that these, physicists and mathematicians you are talking about are not authorities on evolutionary processes. They usually reject evolution (or parts of it) out of ignorance and theological/philosophical issues, not science. That's okay until they start acting like they know more about the subject then scientists who actually study it.

Another good point, RufusAtticus. Although I do find a bit of humor there, since this is one of the points I have also seen the physicists and mathematicians make regarding biologists who lack skill in the mathematics of probability--yet proceed to assume that unlikely events must have occurred without any attempt to rigorously investigate the probability of such events. Perhaps scientists in each area may be justified in viewing essentially the same problem from their own particular vantage points.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Sinai,

Those physicists and mathematicians do not understand evolutionary biology then. Probability and mathematics are the core part of evolutionary biology. The father of modern statistics, R. A. Fisher, was an evolutionary biologist. He developed modern statistics because he needed it to deal with the problems he was facing in his research on evolution. Any mathematician or statistician who claims that evolutionary biology doesn't understand mathematics or statistics is grossly uninformed.

 

[Sinai]

Rufus, before making such a blanket accusation, you might wish to read Harold Morowitz's Energy Flow in Biology and Gerald L. Schroeder's The Science of God. You should note that neither man claimed "that evolutionary biology doesn't understand mathematics or statistics" as you seem to assert. Rather, they take issue with persons who make assumptions without any attempt to rigorously investigate the probability of such events--whether those persons are young earth creationists or are evolutionary biologists (and yes, persons with scientific credentials from both ends of the spectrum have been guilty of doing this).

 

[RufusAtticus]

Sinai,

I was responding to the comment, "I have also seen the physicists and mathematicians make regarding biologists who lack skill in the mathematics of probability," by pointing out that such skills are essential to the study of evolution. Anyone claiming otherwise is grossly misinformed. In my experience, a major part of evolution is determining the probability of events. Can you clarify what type of events those authors are refering to with respect to biology?

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
In my experience, a major part of evolution is determining the probability of events. Can you clarify what type of events those authors are refering to with respect to biology?

Let me give you an example involving a very well respected evolutionary biologist. Nobel laureate George Wald, one of the pioneering researchers in the biochemistry of vision and among the better known and respected evolutionary biologists, wrote in Scientific American that random processes following the physical laws of our universe not only can but did in fact account for the spontaneous generation of life from the nonliving. He concluded that life is an inevitable product of chemistry. All one has to do is to wait for the random events to occur: "Time itself performs the miracles," he wrote. "Time is in fact the hero of the plot."

Although Wald's credentials as an evolutionary biologist were rather impressive, his skills in mathematics were apparently not quite so good....and it is on the mathematics of probability that Wald based his arguments.

This is where Harold Morowitz's book Energy Flow in Biology comes in. Professor Morowitz had become concerned about the casualness with which some scientists studying the origins of life were assuming that unlikely events must have occurred--especially since those scientists were making assumptions without any attempt to rigorously investigate the probability of such events.

Morowitz presented computations of the time required for random chemical reactions to form a simple, single-celled bacterium. Even though he based his calculations on optimistically rapid rates of reactions, the calculated time for the bacterium to form exceeded not only the 4.5-billion year age of the Earth, but also the entire 15 billion years it is estimated that is the approximate age of the universe. Morowitz concluded that "Random events cannot account for the origin of life, at least not in the time available." The evidence was strong enough that merely time and random processes were not sufficient that Scientific American acknowledged that Wald had erred in his prior article.

 

[chickenman]

but how does one calculate the probability of molecules forming a simple bacterium, its like that guy who told me the probability of the bible prophecies coming true by chance were 1 in 10^58, how do you decide the probabilty of a plasma membrane forming? there is a step that doesn't involve maths

 

[RufusAtticus]

Sinai,

You have made a few mistakes. George Wald is a biochemist, not an evolutionary biologist. (You do know what an evolutionary biologist is, don't you?) Check out his biography if you don't believe me. You also claimed that there are probability flaws in evolution, but present me an example that has nothing to do with evolution. You do understand that evolution does not concern biogenesis? Now, do you have an example that concerns evolution?

Furthermore, Morowitz's book was published in 1979. Not enough information was available then (or even now) to determine what constitutes a "simple, single-celled bacterium." So it is impossible to calculate it's probability to any sort of accuracy.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Sinai, you have made a few mistakes. George Wald is a biochemist, not an evolutionary biologist. (You do know what an evolutionary biologist is, don't you?)

Apparently, as far as you are concerned, an "evolutionary bioligist" is a person who is classified as such by RufusAtticus. Merely being a Nobel laureate, a world famous biologist, and a writer in major scientific publications on the origins and evolution of life is not sufficient. Sorry I failed to check with Rufus to determine if Dr. Wald met RA's official classification. Please forgive me.

And I did not claim "that there are probability flaws in evolution." There may be such flaws, but I have not claimed that. What I said was that a statement you made "is one of the points I have also seen the physicists and mathematicians make regarding biologists who lack skill in the mathematics of probability--yet proceed to assume that unlikely events must have occurred without any attempt to rigorously investigate the probability of such events."

Since you next complain that the example I gave "has nothing to do with evolution" (and follow with the question "You do understand that evolution does not concern biogenesis?"), I presume that the official RA position is that "evolution" only deals with changes to life forms after such life forms have originated, and that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life on our planet. [Does this mean that the theory of evolution does not include the origin of species?] I have no problem with that, but merely wish you to first discuss precisely what you believe is included and for you to explain why you seem to be so upset with what I have previously posted. Thank you.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Sinai,

Evolutionary biology is a specific field of biology. Simply being a scientist who accepts evolution does not make one an evolutionary biologist. I have nothing to do with deciding who qualifies. That's up to the type of research they do. Go put in "Evolutionary Biology" in Google and check out the many academic webpages for specific examples of evolutionary biologists.

The thing that first clued me in to the fact that Wald is not an evolutionary biologist is his Nobel laureate status. There is no Nobel prize in biology, although biochemists do receive the chemistry or medicine prize. Check out his biography. The topic of evolution seems rather absent for someone who’s an evolutionary biologist.

Furthermore, study of evolution does not cover the origin of life. That’s not my opinion but a fact of science. I’m sorry I didn’t explain that to you, but I had no inclination that you didn’t know that.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Furthermore, Morowitz's book was published in 1979. Not enough information was available then (or even now) to determine what constitutes a "simple, single-celled bacterium." So it is impossible to calculate it's probability to any sort of accuracy."

funny, that's what people used to say about the greeks and romans about calculating the approximate distance from the earth to the sun..hmm...

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
funny, that's what people used to say about the greeks and romans about calculating the approximate distance from the earth to the sun..hmm...

Reference please.

Even if that is true, it still doesn't bear upon the quality of Morowitz's claim. Would you happen to have anything to offer in support of him?

 

[chickenman]

the sun thing isn't a good analogy, I wish I could post that graph of the increase in information in the field of bioinformatics over the last ten years. Knowledge in the field of genetics and evolution is increasing at an exponential rate, 1979 is a looooooong time ago in relation to these fields.

 

[LouisBooth]

ruf sure, I refer you to your history book of science

http://www.earlygreece.com/page1014.html

Second one entitled..Measuring the Solar System

Sorry I dont' have more info handy

 

[AV1611VET]

Do any Christians or non-christians believe that Macro-Evolution should be taught in schools.

I don't.

 

[Freodin]

I don't.

Excuse me, why do you do that?

Depending on the settings of this forum, it is difficult enough to find these ancient threads. But regardless of how your settings are, it is not so difficult to check the date of the OP or the last post.

This conversation is dead. Those who started it are no longer around. You are answering empty air... why do you do that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Excuse me, why do you do that?

Depending on the settings of this forum, it is difficult enough to find these ancient threads. But regardless of how your settings are, it is not so difficult to check the date of the OP or the last post.

This conversation is dead. Those who started it are no longer around. You are answering empty air... why do you do that?

Because a good point never dies!

 

[Split Rock]

I don't.

Nobody cares... especailly people who haven't read a post here since 2002.

Excuse me, why do you do that?

This conversation is dead. Those who started it are no longer around. You are answering empty air... why do you do that?

Because he is really, really, REALLY Bored.

 

[laconicstudent]

I can do it too.

If macro evolution is to be taught, then so should Creation, they both have science to back them up,

Factually incorrect.

and they both have theories, so they should both be taught.

Again, factually incorrect. Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is a disproved hypothesis.

Remember, in Christianity, no decision at all is still a decision and we should give the kids the oppurtunity to hear both sides.

Except there isn't two sides to this issue, in actuality. This is like saying that we should teach a Flat Earth, because a fringe society still insists that it is true, and we should offer both sides.


No.

 

[Cabal]

I never thought I'd say this but I think AV actually improved a thread for once.