AgnosticWeb.com - Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!!

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

dhw — Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:11:51 +0000

MATT: Whoa! Whoa! Hold on just a minute here! My definition of Natural Selection was this: "Natural selection is a function that takes two inputs, a group of genetically compatible organisms, as well as changes in environment, and its output is changes in frequencies of certain alleles within that group of organisms, where the alleles can be traced back to the changes in environment."-I'm sorry I didn't recognize this as a definition, but as your previous post continued, I thought I was getting a clearer idea of what you were trying to say, and pointed out that my only disagreement was with your use of "NS", which I would have replaced with "evolution". I have a similar objection to this definition. (I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you sometimes conflate the two terms.) It seems to me that you are trying to incorporate all the phases of evolution into a computer programme called NS (function, input, output etc.?). Your definition does not even indirectly involve selection or the outcome of selection, which I would have thought was essential ... a dead organism will also undergo changes! ... and also it suggests that NS is responsible for the changes (see below), whereas it selects existing changes which are beneficial. I do wish you would say why you object to the conventional definitions. Here's another nice, simple one: "the process by which only plants and animals that are naturally suitable for life in their environment will continue to live and breed, while all others will die out." (Longman Dic. of Contemporary English) Let me skip now to your summary: "If we agree that natural selection is a process, and we can agree that it requires both existing organisms and environmental changes, and that its output are sub-populations with traits that didn't exist prior, then we are in complete agreement."-I agree and I don't agree (and I much prefer the word "process"), because you have phrased it in such a way that it is highly ambiguous, as is made clear by your last paragraph: MATT: Natural selection is just a mechanism proposed to explain evolutionary change. The mechanism requires organisms and environmental events, and by repeated application of the mechanism, you'll have your explanation for evolution.-Firstly, I don't like the word "mechanism", which I think would be far more applicable to whatever physical "machinery" exists within the organism that enables it to adapt (and innovate). That's why I prefer "process", which you have also accepted. Secondly, NS does not "explain" evolutionary change, it only explains why some organisms survive and others don't. That is the "selection". And this is where the ambiguity of your earlier summary comes into play. Of course NS requires existing organisms and environmental changes, because it can only come into operation when these exist. But what it requires does not tell us what it is or does. And if by "output" you mean what is left for us to see, then yes, the output is new traits. But if you mean the new traits are the PRODUCT of NS, then no, they are the product of the evolutionary process in which environmental change triggers organic change, whereas NS decides which of the changes will survive. NS does not produce anything, and Nature cannot select organisms or changes in organisms until they exist. NS preserves what is useful. Again, let me ask you why you object to this description of the evolutionary process.

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

xeno6696 — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:38:38 +0000

MATT: I'm stating that without a changed environment, there is NO evolution. The central point to "Natural Selection" is that changes we see in the fossil record happened by the challenge/response relationship between organisms and their environment. > > Our dispute only lies in your use of "Natural Selection", which initially you conflated with changes in the environment, and which here I would replace with "evolution", a word which automatically entails change,whereas "selection" only entails choice between organisms that already exist. I agree that without a changed environment there is NO evolution. Do you agree that without adaptation and innovation there is NO evolution? Do you agree that some creatures do adapt and others don't, and those that adapt survive and those that don't adapt perish? And that innovations that are unhelpful won't survive, and innovations that are helpful will survive? The latter is the phase that rounds off the process, and is the definition of Natural Selection that I offered you: "NS is the process by which those organisms best able to adapt to a particular environment will survive." I can quote you a dozen reference books with similar definitions. To sum up, please see my response to Romansh below: > - Do you agree that the definition of natural selection that I have provided neatly encompasses the cases you have raised here? Most dictionary definitions of "Natural Selection" state "The process..." as a leading phrase That's why I chose the word "function." Natural Selection takes organisms, and environmental events, and the repeated application of that function over time leads to evolution. So when I said "Evolution by natural selection" in the preceding post, I was separating out "Evolution" (the observed phenomenon) and focusing on "natural selection" (the mechanism proposed to explain the observed phenomenon.) -If we agree that natural selection is a process, and we can agree that it requires both existing organisms and environmental changes, and that its output are sub-populations with traits that didn't exist prior, then we are in complete agreement. -- > Dhw: I simply cannot see how an asteroid crashing into the earth can be called Natural Selection. > ROMANSH: For me natural selection and the environment are inseparable. > Asteroids are major step changes in the environment... > > I totally agree. But inseparable does not mean synonymous. Every part of evolution is indispensable and inseparable, from environmental change to adaptation to innovation to NS. My disagreement with Matt is over his apparent definition of NS as a change in the environment, and my question is: why single out one part as being "the most important"?-I think it would be fair to say that my exact formulation of Natural Selection wasn't fully fleshed out until this conversation. It was a bit more ambiguous. I think now, I have it straightened out. > > A final word to Matt. This is how I see evolution proceeding: environmental change triggers organic change, and NS decides which changes will survive and which ones won't. What is your objection to this description?-I hope my first paragraphs up above explain this: Natural selection is just a mechanism proposed to explain evolutionary change. The mechanism requires organisms and environmental events, and by repeated application of the mechanism, you'll have your explanation for evolution. Admittedly, I get caught up sometimes into conflating evolution *with* natural selection, but that's because it is the only mechanism for evolution that has really been worked on. There are other possible mechanisms, it just happens that the one that usually gets brought up here can't be studied...

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:20:38 +0000

Matt: However my reasons for believing a new species won't just arise "de novo" are manifold:[/color] > > 1. It has never been observed. <--That's a big one.-How do you explain all the new findings from the Cambrian explosion? It all seems very de novo to me. > > Matt:Really, then what about the symbiotic thesis that stands for how we grabbed mitochondria? And the way our intestines work with our flora, it pretty much means precisely that one strategy for survival is many, different communities of organisms working together in tandem. E.O. Wilson has argued extensively that Eusocial behavior exposes organisms to a whole new plateau of evolutionary development that wasn't possible before. -Perfectly reasonable for me. > > > > David:You are quoting pure speculation. > > Matt:No, I'm quoting theory that's used in actual research: > > http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/g84-038 > > This particular paper recreated in the lab precisely what was observed in nature, demonstrating that not only is that definition of speciation valid, its testable. Something lacking in any alternative you've presented.-The abstract I found looked at mosquito hybridization. Must be an incorrect reference. Makes no sense in your line of reasoning. > > > > > > > Matt; Could you do better to explain what you mean by discrete jumps, > > > > David: I can parphrase Gould. The palentologist's guarded secret is that all we have got is the tips and nodes of branches of the trees. > > Matt: Except in certain clear-cut cases, such as the progression of horse fossils.-You could mention the whale series also, but note both fit Gould. Where are the intermediate forms? In both cases we are seeing giant leaps of morphology. I'm still with Gould and Eldredge on punctuated equil.

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

xeno6696 — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:07:53 +0000

If you give an asteroid event as a "simple case" of NS, you are quite clearly conflating the two. That is why I asked you for a definition of NS, and you have responded with "Evolution by natural selection", which is not a definition. You then explain how you think evolution proceeds, which is fine, and I agree almost totally with your concluding summary: > -Whoa! Whoa! Hold on just a minute here! My definition of Natural Selection was this:-"Natural selection is a function that takes two inputs, a group of genetically compatible organisms, as well as changes in environment, and its output is changes in frequencies of certain alleles within that group of organisms, where the alleles can be traced back to the changes in environment. "- I'm going to address the rest of this in a separate reply, because I think you may have missed my point entirely!

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

xeno6696 — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:00:59 +0000

I must stress again, that the paper I just linked in my previous post, shows something significant: It demonstrates that scientists understand speciation to the point that they are elucidating the actual genetic mechanisms that make it happen.

Possible goldilocks planet (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 14:56:34 +0000

> dhw: I'm sure Matt sees this line of reasoning just as I do. But we both see all the lines of reasoning, and he and I agree that nobody can say one is "stronger" than any other because unless we get proof either way, there will never be a consensus. > > ATHEIST: If Earth's the only place with life on it, one stroke of luck out of billions of combinations is all it needed. And why would your God create hundreds of habitable planets and only make one inhabited? Ugh, what a waste! But of course, if life is found elsewhere, that proves it's all perfectly natural. > > THEIST: If life on Earth is unique, it must have been specially designed. If life is found elsewhere, as you so rightly asked, why would God only create life on one of his habitable planets? And if "life is everywhere", well, what's the difference? Even the simplest forms are too complex for us to create, so God must have created them and let them loose all over the place instead of just on Earth. > > Yer takes yer money....-Except for the view that us humans are a very special form of life, and seem to be found in only one place in a vast universe. I'll accept your views for both sides for simple life, but when humans are required for the comparisons, then how do you view the two sides of the argument?

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

xeno6696 — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 14:54:18 +0000

> > Matt: But we can point to the fact that we've never seen adaptation happen without an environmental cause. Just like we can point to the fact that the sun will rise tommorrow. > > I don't know how you can claim that. A new predator is in a sense environmental but really a new organism on the block, to be fought with. New oganisms are new challenges. And how do you know that some species don't arrive de novo without a challenge? > -My thinking here is hinged on exactly that "in a sense" thinking you parsed here. A new predator in a new territory is an alteration of the environment for the prey species--AND an alteration of the environment of the predator species. -I think you need to explain a little more precisely what you're really targeting here. At face value, the same way I know I'm not a brain in a vat: I have no reason to believe I'm a brain in a vat. However my reasons for believing a new species won't just arise "de novo" are manifold:-1. It has never been observed. <--That's a big one. 2. We know that evolution intrinsically linked with reproduction, which we have observed, and we have also observed allele shifts within populations. 3. Because of 2, and combined with the fact that the fossil record clearly shows a progression of accumulating more complicated structure, we have very strong reasons to believe that at one point all life shared a single common ancestor.-Because life is iterative, and provably generational, it stands to reason that we shouldn't expect a cat when a two dogs mate. - > > > > > > This here is a problem for you because you desire to see a purpose for everything. Romansh's paper demonstrates that multicellularity *just happened.* > > The yeast are sort of multicellular, as they are single celled bunched together. It is a simplistic form of some sort of multicellular beginning with a large stretch of imagination.-Really, then what about the symbiotic thesis that stands for how we grabbed mitochondria? And the way our intestines work with our flora, it pretty much means precisely that one strategy for survival is many, different communities of organisms working together in tandem. E.O. Wilson has argued extensively that Eusocial behavior exposes organisms to a whole new plateau of evolutionary development that wasn't possible before. -> > > > >And we still don't know how speciation is created, so your demonstration is wanting. Certain weird developments like mammals taking to water look like deliberate changes with n o obvious cause. > > > > Madtt: And if I recall, speciation happens when a subgroup can no longer create viable offspring with its parent group. > > You are quoting pure speculation. -No, I'm quoting theory that's used in actual research:-http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/g84-038-This particular paper recreated in the lab precisely what was observed in nature, demonstrating that not only is that definition of speciation valid, its testable. Something lacking in any alternative you've presented. -> > > > Matt; Could you do better to explain what you mean by discrete jumps, because every time you bring this up, you always make me think you're talking about the fossil record, and the canned explanation "we don't have a fossil for every form in-between!" > > I can parphrase Gould. The palentologist's guarded secret is that all we have got is the tips and nodes of branches of the trees.-Except in certain clear-cut cases, such as the progression of horse fossils.

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

dhw — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:19:07 +0000

David has already dealt with some of the major points raised, but I'll continue my own dialogue with Matt (and Romansh) in the hope that this will lead to greater clarity. There are two points at issue between Matt and myself, summed up by the following: 1) Matt thinks Natural Selection is "the most important part of the process" of evolution. 2) DAVID: Natural selection never creates variety. MATT: Yes it does. [...] Simple case: Asteroid crashes into the Earth. "THAT is the impetus that then FORCES organisms into rapid adaptation.-MATT: I'm not conflating asteroid events with natural selection.-If you give an asteroid event as a "simple case" of NS, you are quite clearly conflating the two. That is why I asked you for a definition of NS, and you have responded with "Evolution by natural selection", which is not a definition. You then explain how you think evolution proceeds, which is fine, and I agree almost totally with your concluding summary:-MATT: I'm stating that without a changed environment, there is NO evolution. The central point to "Natural Selection" is that changes we see in the fossil record happened by the challenge/response relationship between organisms and their environment.-Our dispute only lies in your use of "Natural Selection", which initially you conflated with changes in the environment, and which here I would replace with "evolution", a word which automatically entails change,whereas "selection" only entails choice between organisms that already exist. I agree that without a changed environment there is NO evolution. Do you agree that without adaptation and innovation there is NO evolution? Do you agree that some creatures do adapt and others don't, and those that adapt survive and those that don't adapt perish? And that innovations that are unhelpful won't survive, and innovations that are helpful will survive? The latter is the phase that rounds off the process, and is the definition of Natural Selection that I offered you: "NS is the process by which those organisms best able to adapt to a particular environment will survive." I can quote you a dozen reference books with similar definitions. To sum up, please see my response to Romansh belowhw: I simply cannot see how an asteroid crashing into the earth can be called Natural Selection. ROMANSH: For me natural selection and the environment are inseparable. Asteroids are major step changes in the environment...-I totally agree. But inseparable does not mean synonymous. Every part of evolution is indispensable and inseparable, from environmental change to adaptation to innovation to NS. My disagreement with Matt is over his apparent definition of NS as a change in the environment, and my question is: why single out one part as being "the most important"?-A final word to Matt. This is how I see evolution proceeding: environmental change triggers organic change, and NS decides which changes will survive and which ones won't. What is your objection to this description?

Possible goldilocks planet (reply)

dhw — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:10:04 +0000

dhw: Spot on, Matt. My point was that whether there is or isn't life and/or evolution on other planets will not make the slightest difference to the beliefs of theists or atheists, because any scenario can be adapted to either belief. Do you honestly think, David, that any atheist would agree with your statement? Now use your imagination and try this test: since you believe special Earth gives theists the stronger argument, if life is discovered elsewhere, do you think that will that give atheism the stronger argument? DAVID: Yes it would help the atheists. The more special the Earth appears as the only planet with life, the higher the odds for a special creation. If life is everywhere, then it appears to be more of a natural event. you and Matt don'tsee this line of reasoning. Why do you think I touted a special Earth so much in my first book with some mention in the second? Why is the book Privileged Planet so key to the ID folks arguments? Concepts of irreducable and specified complexity runs through the theist arguments, because it increases the odds against chance natural events.-I'm sure Matt sees this line of reasoning just as I do. But we both see all the lines of reasoning, and he and I agree that nobody can say one is "stronger" than any other because unless we get proof either way, there will never be a consensus.-ATHEIST: If Earth's the only place with life on it, one stroke of luck out of billions of combinations is all it needed. And why would your God create hundreds of habitable planets and only make one inhabited? Ugh, what a waste! But of course, if life is found elsewhere, that proves it's all perfectly natural.-THEIST: If life on Earth is unique, it must have been specially designed. If life is found elsewhere, as you so rightly asked, why would God only create life on one of his habitable planets? And if "life is everywhere", well, what's the difference? Even the simplest forms are too complex for us to create, so God must have created them and let them loose all over the place instead of just on Earth. -Yer takes yer money....

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 05:06:18 +0000

David: This happened in a lab under intelligent guidance, which is the next best thing I guess. I agree with you about evidence and data. > > Romansh: Yep the centripetal forces and angular momentum in a testube are pretty intelligent.-No, it is the intelligent scientists who put the yeast into the centrifuge to push a process to make uncellular organisms lump together as if they are truly multicellular. Whereas it results in a simplistic form of what is truly multicellular. On the other hand, this may represent how multicellularity started. We cannot relive the history, so all the OOL lab work is an educated guess.

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 04:58:38 +0000

David: As I see it, there must be changes in competition and in environment, then adaptations, and then finally as a result of competition, survival of some phenotypes. I view natural selection only as the competition/survival part of the process. > > Matt: Addressing the red claim: > > This isn't a problem. Natural selection takes place at any given instance where a collection of organisms is being stressed. -No. You are starting at the beginnng of a process that leads to a point when NS can take action.

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 04:54:46 +0000

Matt:On the contrary, as Romansh has already shown you, there are dozens of ideas about how speciation occurs, the simplest definition I've seen is one I've already provided: A sub group can no longer form viable offspring with its parent group. The talkorigins link provides an encyclopedia of examples. -Examples of conjectures. > > > > Matt:But if an event never happens that puts pressure against those alleles, evolution does not happen! This echoes a previous post, where I stated to prove that epigenetics is a stronger source of evolutionary change, you needed to be able to demonstrate that an organism exhibits enough of a change as to be called a different species, without the presence of selective pressure. > > > > > Matt: That line. In red. Right there. Stop. We're in the same arena here. -What we are agreeing on here is that NS is a final arbitor of forms that it receives passively and the it acts on what it receives. I am splitting the whole process into succeeding parts, and you want to lump it all into one item. Yes, NS only acts at the end of the process and does nothing until then.-> > > Matt:Maybe a football (soccer) analogy is in order: Natural selection is the goalie. It doesn't matter at all what happens on the other side of the field, except in the ultra-rare instances when the ball gets past the goalie. > > > > That I can accept as an analogy. Note the goalie sits on his hands until the ball finally starts to come his way. All of the preliminary action is elsewhere. His stopping the ball or missing it is a final step. > > Matt:If you accept that analogy, than you accept this extension: > > The only thing that matters in any game of soccer: the balls that hit the back of the net. Everything else? Unimportant.-Your interpretation. Of course NS is a final arbitor, and is active as a goalie, but the goalie controls nothing of the action until the ball comes at him. Everything passive from his viewpoint until that final moment. NS has no control until the end point. Waht NS does matters very much, but it cannot control what comes at it for selection. We havee two different ways of disecting the process.

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 04:42:17 +0000

> Matt: But we can point to the fact that we've never seen adaptation happen without an environmental cause. Just like we can point to the fact that the sun will rise tommorrow.-I don't know how you can claim that. A new predator is in a sense environmental but really a new organism on the block, to be fought with. New oganisms are new challenges. And how do you know that some species don't arrive de novo without a challenge?- > > This here is a problem for you because you desire to see a purpose for everything. Romansh's paper demonstrates that multicellularity *just happened.* -The yeast are sort of multicellular, as they are single celled bunched together. It is a simplistic form of some sort of multicellular beginning with a large stretch of imagination. > > >And we still don't know how speciation is created, so your demonstration is wanting. Certain weird developments like mammals taking to water look like deliberate changes with n o obvious cause. > > Madtt: And if I recall, speciation happens when a subgroup can no longer create viable offspring with its parent group.-You are quoting pure speculation. > > Matt; Could you do better to explain what you mean by discrete jumps, because every time you bring this up, you always make me think you're talking about the fossil record, and the canned explanation "we don't have a fossil for every form in-between!"-I can parphrase Gould. The palentologist's guarded secret is that all we have got is the tips and nodes of branches of the trees.

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

romansh — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 03:05:27 +0000

This happened in a lab under intelligent guidance, which is the next best thing I guess. I agree with you about evidence and data.-Yep the centripetal forces and angular momentum in a testube are pretty intelligent.

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 01:32:49 +0000

Did environmental change cause multicellularity? Answer, we don't know. > > Romansh: We don't know but we do have evidence it can happen > > http://discover.umn.edu/news/science-technology/university-minnesota-biologists-replica... > As an agnostic I don't claim to know very much if anything. > > But going around saying we don't know is sort of pointless for me. > > Give me data, and if you don't have data, evidence will do.-This happened in a lab under intelligent guidance, which is the next best thing I guess. I agree with you about evidence and data.

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

xeno6696 — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 00:56:04 +0000

Romansh: I simply cannot see how an asteroid crashing into the earth can be called Natural Selection. > > > > For me natural selection and the environment are inseparable. > > > > Asteroids are major step changes in the environment, > > > > and evolution could be considered an incremental change, ie the flora and fauna within an ecosystem change slowly. A biological entity shapes its environment (not intentionally)and that environment in turn shapes the entity's evolution. > > The problem is interpreting and defining where in a time sequence does natural selection take place. I agree that an asteroid is part of a process of various changes that can end up challenging survival. As I see it, there must be changes in competition and in environment, then adaptations, and then finally as a result of competition, survival of some phenotypes. I view natural selection only as the competition/survival part of the process.-Addressing the red claim: -This isn't a problem. Natural selection takes place at any given instance where a collection of organisms is being stressed. This can be as trivial as a herd of cattle being forced to eat new plants... some of which are poisonous. -Please note, I think that overall, there are at least four levels of selection present in nature, Natural Selection being the one at the lowest level. -More on that after I get more time...

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

xeno6696 — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 00:51:39 +0000

Matt: Let me focus here: > > > > David: Natural selection never creates variety. > > > > Yes it does: It is responsible for forcing organisms to adapt. That means precisely that variety doesn't come into tangible fruition, without selection. And my analogy was absolutely perfect: you agreed to it exactly... but didn't! > > That's because I think you look at it backwards. -I look at it from a different perspective for sure, but backwards? Nope. Evolution is a cyclical process, there is no "backwards" on a circle. - >The genome is built to produce experimentation. Natural selection does not force genetic drift or random mutation. It does cause epigenetic attempts at new accommodations. But it is the genome that methylates DNA and the adaptations are juddged by competition in nature. > -The key point behind my placing Natural selection as the premier component is that it is the change in the environment that prompts the organism to respond... epigenetically... DNA methylation... the whole 9 yards. Natural selection explains *why* we see progressions of species throughout the fossil record. One of your key arguments always comes back to speed... Romansh's paper demonstrates that the kind of research that will provide us with those kinds of answers isn't being done! This is more cause to suspend belief than it is to walk your line towards a creator! There's fields of stones that we've left unturned! - > > > > Matt: But those changes rarely result in observable phenotypes. (I'm leaving room for "simple" changes such as fur color/eye colour/size variations etc.) > > You are trying to bring in speciation with the phenotype proposal. You forget the famous experiment with Reznick's guppies. There whole populations changed size. I know you tried to exclude size, but we are not discussing speciation, just adaptation. We have no idea how speciation occurs, despite Darwin's theory. > > -On the contrary, as Romansh has already shown you, there are dozens of ideas about how speciation occurs, the simplest definition I've seen is one I've already provided: A sub group can no longer form viable offspring with its parent group. The talkorigins link provides an encyclopedia of examples. -> > Matt:But if an event never happens that puts pressure against those alleles, evolution does not happen! This echoes a previous post, where I stated to prove that epigenetics is a stronger source of evolutionary change, you needed to be able to demonstrate that an organism exhibits enough of a change as to be called a different species, without the presence of selective pressure. > > Yes, natural selection applies selective pressure among all the varieties produced by an organism, and epigenetics appears to be the main adaptive mechanism that is applied, but it is the variety produced by the organism from which natural selection results in surviving choices, all adaptations, not new species. I agree that challenges in nature force the genome to create adaptations, but natural selection is only an arbiter or judging system. Perhaps we should define what you think the term natural selection means. I think it is the result of competition between organisms or competition with natural events and forces. > > -That line. In red. Right there. Stop. We're in the same arena here. -What's the explanation for the fossil progression of horses? -"Some force of the environment, acts on species, and the organisms respond adapting to the new forms." NS is the judge by which each fossil horse came to take its form. -> > Matt:Maybe a football (soccer) analogy is in order: Natural selection is the goalie. It doesn't matter at all what happens on the other side of the field, except in the ultra-rare instances when the ball gets past the goalie. > > That I can accept as an analogy. Note the goalie sits on his hands until the ball finally starts to come his way. All of the preliminary action is elsewhere. His stopping the ball or missing it is a final step.-If you accept that analogy, than you accept this extension:-The only thing that matters in any game of soccer: the balls that hit the back of the net. Everything else? Unimportant.

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

xeno6696 — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 00:36:21 +0000

Matt: I'm not conflating asteroid events with natural selection dhw, I'm stating that without a changed environment, there is NO evolution. The central point to "Natural Selection" is that changes we see in the fossil record happened by the challenge/response relationship between organisms and their environment. > > > > Refuting it, is simple: demonstrate speciation without a corresponding environmental change, and without human intervention. > > Did environmental change cause multicellularity? Answer, we don't know. -But we can point to the fact that we've never seen adaptation happen without an environmental cause. Just like we can point to the fact that the sun will rise tommorrow. ->We can see that the most successful biomass on Earth are bacteria. Why bother with multicelualarity if so successful? -This here is a problem for you because you desire to see a purpose for everything. Romansh's paper demonstrates that multicellularity *just happened.* ->And we still don't know how speciation is created, so your demonstration is wanting. Certain weird developments like mammals taking to water look like deliberate changes with n o obvious cause. -Mammals add intelligence to the scenario which complicates things. A mammal can roam far beyond its range and be faced with an intelligence problem of finding unfamiliar food. Intelligence is a factor of evolution too, which has been a strong backdrop for my posts here. And if I recall, speciation happens when a subgroup can no longer create viable offspring with its parent group. -Here's a complete treatise on the entire subject: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html->My point is that we still do not know enough to know why we see evolutionary changes in form resulting from descrete jumps, not tiny increments. Most Darwin scientists seem to now recognize it is a major problem for the theory.-Could you do better to explain what you mean by discrete jumps, because every time you bring this up, you always make me think you're talking about the fossil record, and the canned explanation "we don't have a fossil for every form in-between!"

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

xeno6696 — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 00:31:22 +0000

Did environmental change cause multicellularity? Answer, we don't know. > > We don't know but we do have evidence it can happen > > http://discover.umn.edu/news/science-technology/university-minnesota-biologists-replica... > As an agnostic I don't claim to know very much if anything. > > But going around saying we don't know is sort of pointless for me. > > Give me data, and if you don't have data, evidence will do.-romansh.... that's amazing and it underlines a point I've brought up in this forum multiple times: -""I don't think anyone had ever tried it before," says lead author Ratcliff. "There aren't many scientists doing experimental evolution, and they're trying to answer questions about evolution, not recreate it." "-This is perhaps because my training is in engineering/math, but the general thought among people in my discipline is that you *cannot* say you really *know* something if you can't reproduce it. Math students are coaxed to reinvent the wheel, precisely because its the reproduction of such activities that you gain crucial insights and understandings in whatever it is you're trying to study. -Modern physical sciences to me seem to be extraordinarily *lacking* in this department. -Modern biology is primarily a descriptive science. But the answers to big questions aren't going to be solved by observation and experimentation alone! Construction is a key, and as recognized by that paper, missing step in modern evolutionary science!

Whoa! Whoa! dhw take notice!!! (reply)

romansh — Sun, 20 Apr 2014 22:33:17 +0000

Did environmental change cause multicellularity? Answer, we don't know.-We don't know but we do have evidence it can happen-http://discover.umn.edu/news/science-technology/university-minnesota-biologists-replicate-key-evolutionary-step-As an agnostic I don't claim to know very much if anything.-But going around saying we don't know is sort of pointless for me. -Give me data, and if you don't have data, evidence will do.