Some random discussion on evolution...

[Guy Threepwood]

No, there is a limit to the amount of variance from the parent. The "principle of reproductive similarity" I believe is what Darwin called it. But there is no known limit to the sum of those variances over many generations.

So the academic theory goes, but ask a dog breeder or farmer.

a record player has a capacity for adaptation, within limits, also

in both cases - push the limits and you just break the design.

That's not to say CD players did not 'evolve' from record players- it just did not happen through the original designs provided range of adaptation- it's not a matter of how lucky the mutation- you have to alter the proper part of the hierarchy- and if you don't have a screwdriver, you're stuck looking at a black box

Darwin's 'black box' was the cell, he had no idea what is was or how it worked, he could only observe the superficial adaptations that we all can- extrapolation of this was not a bad guess in the Victorian age.. I don't think it holds up too well to 21st C microbiology

 

[Speedwell]

So the academic theory goes, but ask a dog breeder or farmer.

Proves the point, really. Selection reduces the information content of the gene pool. Forced selection reduces the information content faster than it can be replenished naturally and the standard deviation of the random distribution of variation shrinks to the point where no further change is possible.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Proves the point, really. Selection reduces the information content of the gene pool. Forced selection reduces the information content faster than it can be replenished naturally and the standard deviation of the random distribution of variation shrinks to the point where no further change is possible.

well there you go, natural selection can only filter and reduce variation, not increase it

So ' the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection ' does nothing to explain a diverging tree of life, but the exact opposite, a reduction in diversity, it turns the tree of life upside down

As Gerd Muller said, the modern synthesis still lacks a theory of the generative

 

[Speedwell]

' the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection '

You forgot about random variation. It's in the book, you just have to read past the title.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You forgot about random variation. It's in the book, you just have to read past the title.

Well it was going to be more accurately titled 'Origin of the Species by Random Mistakes.. ' but his publisher advised him against it..

But yes, that's what the theory comes down to, the entire creative process being left to pure blind fluke-
remembering that natural selection can create exactly nothing, it can only select from what has already been created- and so secular biologists are looking for something better also-

and that's without even touching on the origin of life itself, which I know is not part of ToE or this thread..
but there could be a more comprehensive answer that covers both-

kinda like QM did for physics

 

[Speedwell]

Well it was going to be more accurately titled 'Origin of the Species by Random Mistakes.. ' but his publisher advised him against it..

But yes, that's what the theory comes down to, the entire creative process being left to pure blind fluke-
remembering that natural selection can create exactly nothing, it can only select from what has already been created- and so secular biologists are looking for something better also-

Not "pure blind fluke" but the orderly production of randomly distributed variation with each new generation.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well it was going to be more accurately titled 'Origin of the Species by Random Mistakes.. ' but his publisher advised him against it..

But yes, that's what the theory comes down to, the entire creative process being left to pure blind fluke-
remembering that natural selection can create exactly nothing, it can only select from what has already been created- and so secular biologists are looking for something better also-

and that's without even touching on the origin of life itself, which I know is not part of ToE or this thread..
but there could be a more comprehensive answer that covers both-

kinda like QM did for physics

Oh my, creationists tslking points from a guy who is completely not a creationist christian on a christian message board.

what an extrordinary coincidence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not "pure blind fluke" but the orderly production of randomly distributed variation with each new generation.

okay, sorry I stand corrected

and it's not an 'old folks home'.. it's an 'elderly person's residence'

 

[Speedwell]

okay, sorry I stand corrected

and it's not an 'old folks home'.. it's an 'elderly person's residence'

That's OK, but if you are going to criticize the theory you ought to at least describe it accurately. Otherwise we might confuse you with creationists who think of poor creatures waiting for just the right mutation to come along at random so they can evolve. That would be a "pure blind fluke."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's OK, but if you are going to criticize the theory you ought to at least describe it accurately. Otherwise we might confuse you with creationists who think of poor creatures waiting for just the right mutation to come along at random so they can evolve. That would be a "pure blind fluke."

hmm..

So let's say your hedge fund manager has a dart board in his office with ticker symbols around it, and you ask him if he's relying on pure blind fluke to pick your stock portfolio..

and he says-' oh no of course not, I pick them according to 'randomly distributed variation''...
that would be reassuring...?

c'mon speedwell, sorry for the sarcasm, but you really don't think it amounts to the same thing?

 

[46AND2]

hmm..

So let's say your hedge fund manager has a dart board in his office with ticker symbols around it, and you ask him if he's relying on pure blind fluke to pick your stock portfolio..

and he says-' oh no of course not, I pick them according to 'randomly distributed variation''...
that would be reassuring...?

c'mon speedwell, sorry for the sarcasm, but you really don't think it amounts to the same thing?

Worst analogy ever.

 

[Speedwell]

hmm..

So let's say your hedge fund manager has a dart board in his office with ticker symbols around it, and you ask him if he's relying on pure blind fluke to pick your stock portfolio..

and he says-' oh no of course not, I pick them according to 'randomly distributed variation''...
that would be reassuring...?

c'mon speedwell, sorry for the sarcasm, but you really don't think it amounts to the same thing?

No, I don't. Each new generation presents to the environment a random distribution of variants--a nice bell curve, with most individuals close to the central tendency but with outliers in either of the tails of the distribution. If the environment stays the same, those near the center of the distribution will prosper most, but if the environment begins to change then the outliers at that end of the distribution will do better. The next generation will also produce a bell-curve distribution of variants, only with the central tendency shifted in that direction. And so on. I really don't see a "pure blind fluke" in that process.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, I don't. Each new generation presents to the environment a random distribution of variants--a nice bell curve, with most individuals close to the central tendency but with outliers in either of the tails of the distribution. If the environment stays the same, those near the center of the distribution will prosper most, but if the environment begins to change then the outliers at that end of the distribution will do better. The next generation will also produce a bell-curve distribution of variants, only with the central tendency shifted in that direction. And so on. I really don't see a "pure blind fluke" in that process.

okay- so as before- we're just talking about natural selection within an already existing range of variants, a change in population distribution, no emergent properties or features are created, only existing variants are selected from- I don't think anyone disputes that- and we all agree it works fine for Finch beaks

Do you think this process adequately accounts for the Cambrian explosion, the emergence of entirely new body plans? selected from what range of pre-existing variants?

must run for now but I appreciate your thoughtful responses

 

[Speedwell]

okay- so as before- we're just talking about natural selection within an already existing range of variants, a change in population distribution, no emergent properties or features are created, only existing variants are selected from- I don't think anyone disputes that- and we all agree it works fine for Finch beaks

Do you think this process adequately accounts for the Cambrian explosion, the emergence of entirely new body plans? selected from what range of pre-existing variants?

Yes, random variation and selection is a stochastic process, fairly easily modeled mathematically. The key to it is that as the outliers in the distribution are selected over the more average individuals by a changing environment, the central tendency of the distribution produced by the next generation shifts in that direction as well. I don't know what you mean in this context by "emergent properties" but new features are never qualitatively new. Everything created by evolution is a variation of what went before. I think we talked about body plans already. The major body plans developed at a time when the number of proto-limbs a creature possessed varied randomly.

 

[Kylie]

hmm..

So let's say your hedge fund manager has a dart board in his office with ticker symbols around it, and you ask him if he's relying on pure blind fluke to pick your stock portfolio..

and he says-' oh no of course not, I pick them according to 'randomly distributed variation''...
that would be reassuring...?

c'mon speedwell, sorry for the sarcasm, but you really don't think it amounts to the same thing?

How about this...

He buys small amounts of lots of different stocks. Then, after a week, he looks to see which stocks have done well and which haven't.

If the stock hasn't done well, he sells it.

If the stock has done well, he buys more of it.

This system, while not guaranteed to be the best performing system, is not going to be random, is it? You are more likely to find that your stocks improve then get worse.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, random variation and selection is a stochastic process, fairly easily modeled mathematically. The key to it is that as the outliers in the distribution are selected over the more average individuals by a changing environment, the central tendency of the distribution produced by the next generation shifts in that direction as well. I don't know what you mean in this context by "emergent properties" but new features are never qualitatively new. Everything created by evolution is a variation of what went before. I think we talked about body plans already. The major body plans developed at a time when the number of proto-limbs a creature possessed varied randomly.

If you are talking about scientifically observable variations and adaptations; Finch beaks, dog breeds, bacteria populations, peppered moths etc- and observing that nothing 'qualitatively new' is observed being created- then I think we can all agree that is true.

If you are talking about a bacteria becoming a human being.. without anything 'qualitatively new' being created .. then obviously we are dealing with a wildly different definition of the term 'qualitatively new'! Arguably Boeing create nothing qualitatively new either, they simply rearrange pre-existing molecules to make their aircraft. If that's a poor analogy it's because it's selling the engineering challenges extremely short.

Semantics aside, in terms of the mechanism being the same- that's plainly not accurate; breeding a dog with longer hair, or a bird with a smaller beak, does not involve constructing brand new protein chains/ cell and tissue types, gene regulatory network or epigenetic changes, just for example.

This comes full circle to the OP and highlights the #1 difference between micro evolution (or natural variation and adaptation) and macro evolution as Darwinism attempts to explain it:

The former is observable, repeatable, empirical, while the latter remains entirely speculative and undemonstrated, we have only uncovered increasing hurdles to this extrapolation, that Darwin could not have imagined.

 

[Speedwell]

If you are talking about scientifically observable variations and adaptations; Finch beaks, dog breeds, bacteria populations, peppered moths etc- and observing that nothing 'qualitatively new' is observed being created- then I think we can all agree that is true.

If you are talking about a bacteria becoming a human being.. without anything 'qualitatively new' being created .. then obviously we are dealing with a wildly different definition of the term 'qualitatively new'! Arguably Boeing create nothing qualitatively new either, they simply rearrange pre-existing molecules to make their aircraft. If that's a poor analogy it's because it's selling the engineering challenges extremely short.

If that's your analogy, then evolution is nothing but the re-arranging of the eukaryotic cells of which all living things are made. And no one is selling the engineering challenges short. Most of the species which have ever existed on the Earth are now extinct.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How about this...

He buys small amounts of lots of different stocks. Then, after a week, he looks to see which stocks have done well and which haven't.

If the stock hasn't done well, he sells it.

If the stock has done well, he buys more of it.

This system, while not guaranteed to be the best performing system, is not going to be random, is it? You are more likely to find that your stocks improve then get worse.

Buy high and sell low...? that's certainly a novel strategy! And I would definitely question that your stocks are more likely to keep improving by it- unless you are buying and selling enough to manipulate the entire market..
But I'm no guru & I'm sure there are whole other forums for this sort of thing!

I do take your point, and by that analogy- I do agree that the selection process is not random- I think we all agree that a superior design will tend to out compete and hence be reproduced in greater numbers than an inferior one. That's precisely why there are more Ford Mustangs on the road today than Ford Pintos. The trickier proposition is making a design superior, by introducing random errors.

 

[pitabread]

a record player has a capacity for adaptation, within limits, also

in both cases - push the limits and you just break the design.

Speaking of evolved electronics, have you heard about the time some researchers tried evolving an oscillator and wound up evolving a radio receiver instead?

Radio emerges from the electronic soup

Shows how evolutionary process can search a space for solutions not immediately obvious to designers.

 

[Kylie]

I do take your point, and by that analogy- I do agree that the selection process is not random- I think we all agree that a superior design will tend to out compete and hence be reproduced in greater numbers than an inferior one. That's precisely why there are more Ford Mustangs on the road today than Ford Pintos. The trickier proposition is making a design superior, by introducing random errors.

So you agree that the process is not random, yet you were perfectly happy to claim the book was going to be titled, "Origin of the Species by Random Mistakes", and that you should ask your hedge fund manager who uses darts to pick your stock portfolio "if he's relying on pure blind fluke to pick your stock portfolio..."

For someone who claims to understand that it isn't random, you sure seem to like pretending that it is.

What's going on?