|
Author
|
Topic: Evolution in Single and Dynamic Environments
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 17. May 2002 09:42
[The following is an overview of a concept I am developing. I would appreciate comments.]
William Dembski is his response to Richard Wein (p.12 para 2) suggests that ID and Darwinian evolution should be evaluated fairly based on the evidence. While many of us would agree this ‘should’ happen, as realists we know it won’t happen until the current Darwinian models/theories are discredited. More specifically, no alternative to Darwinian evolution will be seriously considered until there is some demonstration, accepted by the scientific community, which disproves or discredits the current ‘Random Mutation - Natural Selection" concept.
Anyone who has seriously addressed the issue knows that it is essentially impossible to disprove or discredit Darwinian evolution with experimental evidence alone. The bacterial flagellum is excellent example. The suggestion that RM&NS can’t explain flagellum is countered with the argument that with more knowledge there might be an explanation. Suggestions that evolution requires functionality in addition to RM&NS is countered with the claim there is no evidence RM&NS doesn’t work.
If Darwinian evolution is to be discredited, it will not be with experimental evidence alone. The obvious alternative is to demonstrate that 1)one of the key assumption underlying the Darwinian model is seriously flawed, and 2)replacing the flawed assumption implies reformulating the evolutionary model. I offer for discussion here the suggestion that "the environment in which organisms must survive and reproduce is far more complex than the environment ‘assumed’ by Darwinian evolution". The following is brief overview of the proposed replacement assumption.
SURVIVAL IN A DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT
Traditional Darwinian evolution is based on the ‘assumption’ that a successful species represents a successful adaptation to a specific environment. The rather simplistic ‘one species-one environment’ assumption creates a number of problems when explaining changes in species. At times, rather minor environmental changes are assumed to generate huge changes in one species, while having no impact on other species living in very close physical proximity. While minor long term environmental changes produce huge ‘adaptive changes’ in a species, huge day to day and hour to hour environmental changes can, according to the ‘one species-one environment’ assumption, be ignored.
The alternative to the ‘one species-one environment’ assumption is the ‘one species-many, rapidly changing environments’ or the dynamic environment assumption. Using the one environment assumption, an organism in order to survive, must evolve one successful adaptation to its environment. Using the dynamic environment assumption, an organism in order to survive, must evolve many adaptations to many environments, and it must evolve the ability to exhibit the appropriate adaptation in the appropriate environment.
DOES IT MATTER?
The dynamic environment assumption clearly provides a more complex and detailed description of the environment in which evolution occurs. The question is, from the perspective of evolutionary theory, "Does it matter?". Does the dynamic environment assumption require a new or different theory or model of evolutionary change? Do existing models and theories ‘work’ in a dynamic environment? Does the use of the dynamic environment assumption add anything to our understanding of evolutionary change? Does the use of simplified ‘stable’ environment assumption inappropriately distort evolutionary models and theories?
The suggestion here is that the answers to all of the above questions is yes. Evolution in a dynamic environment is a very different phenomena from evolution in an artificially stable environment.
HOW DO YOU DEMONSTRATE THE DIFFERENCE?
Evolution in a single environment might be described as evolution the photograph and evolution in a dynamic environment might be described as evolution the movie. Evolution the movie, it appears, is a far more powerful process than evolution the Darwinian photo. Evolution the photo, explains changes in traits. Evolution the movie explains the creation of complex biological designs.
Computer simulations might provide a useful tool for illustrating the differences between evolution operating in two very different types of environmental assumptions. Genetic algorithm(GA) simulations demonstrate single environment evolution. It is possible, or so it appears on paper, to construct models that both generate multiple adaptive solutions and regularly change the active adaptive solution to reflect changing external conditions. These dynamic environment models are called adaptive change(AC) models.
Comparing both the structure and the behavior of the two types of simulations would, I suggest, demonstrate the relative value of two very different environmental assumptions.
[As stated in the beginning, it seems doubtful if any alternative will be seriously considered until Darwinian evolution is discredited. The approach sketched above suggests challenging Darwinian theory by challenging one of the key assumptions. I would appreciate comments on the proposed strategy. ]
[ 17 May 2002, 15:22: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 17. May 2002 09:57
Warren:
Your insightful post about dynamic environments ("evolution, the movie"---I love it!) reminds me of a point I made in my recent "Theses on Darwin," to wit:
Darwinians and genocentrists employ a weasel-concept---the "norm of reaction"---to explain away the fact that there is no one-to-one correspondence between genotypes and phenotypes, or, in other words, that the same genotype can give rise to very different phenotypes under different circumstances.
But ALL of life is just one gigantic "norm or reaction"! What needs to happen is that we stop adding epicycles upon epicycles to Darwinian theory, and we start focusing directly on the "norm of reaction"---which is just an obscurantist term for the plastic or adaptive ability of the organism to intelligently adapt itself to circumstances.
Now, as this concept is commonly used, it applies to ontogenetic differences arising from the "same" genome, but there is no reason to believe that anything is happening in phylogenetic change other than "norms of reaction" slowly changing and becoming genetically fixed---i.e., life learning new tricks. It is the norm of reaction, or better, the rational agency of life, that is driving everything, including phylogenetic change.
Am I right in thinking that this is another way of saying the same thing that you said in your post?
IP: Logged
|
|
fish
Member
Member # 213
|
posted 17. May 2002 10:46
quote:
William Dembski is his response to Richard Wein (p.12 para 2) suggests that ID and Darwinian evolution should be evaluated fairly based on the evidence. While many of us would agree this ‘should’ happen, as realists we know it won’t happen until the current Darwinian models/theories are discredited.
Just a note to say that this is exactly the opposite of what most Darwinists think.
Darwinism is a probabilistic theory that is accepted essentially because there are no other theories that make empirical predictions that give a better fit the evidence.
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 17. May 2002 11:10
Fish:
I wonder if you are willing to make the distinction between the apparent empirical fact of evolution (i.e., transformation) which I and many others agree does indeed fit the evidence, and natural selection as an explanation of the fact of evolution?
I do not believe it is correct to say that natural selection---as opposed to transformation---enjoys very strong empirical support, at least not in relation to macroevolution. But more important, from my perspective, is the fact that natural selection simply presupposes the existence of adaptive traits. They have to exist, before they can be "selected" (that is, before they can proliferate through a population).
The main point at issue here at ISCID is whether it makes any sense to say that Darwinism can explain the facts of evolution, given this logical flaw in its structure, together with the fact that "chance" must be excluded from playing a significant role on statistical-mechanical grounds (or informaion-theoretic grounds, as you prefer---it comes to the same thing).
To the extent that Darwinism is intuitively plausible, it is entirely because it is tacitly presupposing the ability of living things to adapt, and indeed the ability of living things to act intelligently in the first place. I submit that for these abilities, no one has a convincing explanation at present---the Darwinians least of all.
If that is so, then I don't see why Darwinism should claim to be the default position.
IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Member
Member # 160
|
posted 17. May 2002 12:58
quote:
James A. Barham: I wonder if you are willing to make the distinction between the apparent empirical fact of evolution (i.e., transformation) which I and many others agree does indeed fit the evidence, and natural selection as an explanation of the fact of evolution?
Fish will answer for himself, but I am certainly willing to make the distinction between common ancestry itself and differential reproductive success as an explanation for various transformations.
quote:
James A. Barham: I do not believe it is correct to say that natural selection---as opposed to transformation---enjoys very strong empirical support, at least not in relation to macroevolution. But more important, from my perspective, is the fact that natural selection simply presupposes the existence of adaptive traits. They have to exist, before they can be "selected" (that is, before they can proliferate through a population).
What does it mean to "presuppose[] the existence of adaptive traits"? It is an obvious fact that biological traits help to determine an individual's reproductive success. It is also patently obvious that some traits confer a larger than average* reproductive success (i.e., they are "adaptive"). The existence (as opposed to properties of their distribution) of adaptive traits is simply not open to dispute, any more than the existence of aeroplanes is.
quote:
James A. Barham: The main point at issue here at ISCID is whether it makes any sense to say that Darwinism can explain the facts of evolution, given this logical flaw in its structure, together with the fact that "chance" must be excluded from playing a significant role on statistical-mechanical grounds (or informaion-theoretic grounds, as you prefer---it comes to the same thing).
What is this logical flaw in the structure of our current evolutionary biology?
quote:
James A. Barham: To the extent that Darwinism is intuitively plausible, it is entirely because it is tacitly presupposing the ability of living things to adapt, and indeed the ability of living things to act intelligently in the first place. I submit that for these abilities, no one has a convincing explanation at present---the Darwinians least of all.
In what way do our current Darwinian models for, say, the population dynamics of HIV presuppose the ability of HIV to act intelligently? It may well be the case that the models are perfectly compatible with intelligent HIV, but how is it presupposed?
Erik
* The average is taken over the population.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 17. May 2002 13:34
Fish,
Fish: Darwinism is a probabilistic theory that is accepted essentially because there are no other theories that make empirical predictions that give a better fit the evidence.
Maybe I was being a little to subtle. Neither traditional Darwinian theory nor Neo-Darwinian mutate-select-genetic algorithms will work in a dynamic environment. In order to address even the simplest dynamic environment problem (i.e. two adaptive solutions and 1 within lifetime adaptive change) you have to assume logical processes and mechanisms beyond those included in either Darwin or neo-Darwinian models. Darwinian theory is clearly incomplete and inadequate in a dynamic environment. If you assume that evolution occurs in a dynamic environment, then you of logical necessity must develop a new theory. Note, this change in theory does not reflect a change in known facts, but a change in how the facts are interpreted.
James,
JB: Am I right in thinking that this is another way of saying the same thing that you said in your post?
As you suggest, very complex genotype-phenotype maps are one of the phenomena which can be explained by models or theories of evolution developed using the dynamic environment assumption. If each of the 30,000 human genes has only 2 states active and inactive, 30,000 genes can produce 2 to the 30,000th power phenotypes. The genotype-phenotype relationship is not, however, the only or even the most important difference resulting from the dynamic environment assumption.
If you are familiar with AI, you realize that genetic algorithm simulations have proved to be a dead end when addressing design problems. As you create more complex models, you can solve more complex problems, but you get further and further from the type of ‘problem’ solving generated by humans and the type of problem solving performed by evolutionary processes.
If you construct models which function in a dynamic environment, you get a very different result. As you increase the complexity of such models, they begin to perform more and more life human problem solvers and they begin to produce complex designs that look more and more like the designs generated by evolutionary processes. [This finding is based on my own, as yet unconfirmed research.]
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 17. May 2002 15:26
Major Warning!
First of all the thread title was "Debunking Darwin." At Brainstorms, we frown upon battles and "debunkings." We want new ideas not just the smashing of others.
With that said, there is some good content in this thread. I also understand that in order for some ideas to be correct, others must be wrong. But beware of the battle warrior mindset.
I am keeping a very close eye on this thread. Be warned.
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 17. May 2002 17:14
Erik:
In my view, the logical flaw in Darwinism is that it claims to explain the teleological character of living things, but in fact it presupposes that character. Therefore, selection theory is an imposture. It does not do what it pretends to do.
Consider this analogy.
One might claim that Boyle's law explains the properties of pressure and volume that we can observe in gases. But this would be a strange sort of explanation! Like Boyle's law, natural selection is a simple statistical relationship governing living things, GIVEN certain properties, including the desire for survival, the intelligence to find instrumental actions sufficient to attain that goal, need for resources, competition for these resources, desire to reproduce, almost, but not quite, perfect fidelity of reproduction, and so forth. All of these universal properties of living things are presupposed by the logical structure of selection theory; therefore, selection theory cannot explain them.
What we needed to explain the properties of gases was not Boyle's law (useful as it was), but a fundamental understanding of the laws of nature that give rise to gases and their causal powers in the first place (i.e., quantum field theory).
Similarly, what we now need to explain the properties of organisms is not the theory of natural selection (useful as it is in limited circumstances), but a fundamental understanding of the laws of nature that give rise to physical systems capable of striving to preserve themselves, and with the intelligence to do so successfully.
In short, I regard natural selection as a superficial description of the evolutionary process, analogous to Boyle's law, but by no means an explanation of that process.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 18. May 2002 06:49
First, I would like to thank the moderator for finding a more appropriate title for this thread.
Second, I would like to explain in a bit more detail why ‘refining’ one simple assumption has such a dramatic impact on ‘evolutionary models’ and theories.
To begin, it will be noted that biology recognizes the environment is dynamic. The ‘single environment’ is a simplifying assumption used to make it easier to construct and evaluate models of the evolutionary process. In the long form the single environment assumption means that ‘you get essentially the same result if you assume a single or dynamic environment’. In proposing the dynamic environment assumption, I am suggesting that the single environment assumption is a distorting rather than simplifying assumption.
When the environmental assumption is changed, the ‘definition of evolution’ changes. With the single environment assumption, evolution is defined as ‘the process which develops an organisms ‘adaptive solution’ to the environment in which it lives’. In modern terminology, this is translated into "evolution is the process that determines an organisms genetic code".
Changing to the dynamic environment assumption changes the definition of what the evolutionary process does from a one dimensional process to a three dimensional process. In a dynamic environment, evolution is 1)a set of process to find the many different adaptive solutions needed to survive in a changing environment, 2)a set of process for determining which adaptive solutions is exhibited for each set of environmental conditions, and 3)a set of processes for changing how the first two sets of processes operate.
It will be noted that all three process included in the above definition of evolution are known to exist. The dynamic environment assumption simply places all there operations under a single heading or requires that ‘in order to explain or model evolutionary change you need a logically consistent and complete model capable of performing all three processes. [Note: If biology adhered to what I call the ‘engineering principle or standard’, the requirement that the components of a scientific model or explanation of a complex, compound phenomena must be complete and logically consistent, then changing to the dynamic assumption not be necessary. Currently, there is no such standard in any of the life sciences. Analyzing and testing one ‘limited scope’ model or theory at time, without requiring completeness and consistency, leads to gaps and inconsistencies in the models of complex phenomena like evolution. ]
Not surprisingly, it is logically impossible to develop even a simplified model of the redefined '‘three dimensional evolutionary process" using only the conventional Darwinian diversity, heritability and selection processes or the neo-darwinian select-mutate processes. The simplest model I have been able to develop of the 3-dimensional evolutionary process involves roughly 20 ‘interact with the environment’ type processes(there is more than one way to sub-divide the components of complex processes).
To go back to where this discussion started, the scientific community is not likely to seriously consider an alternative to Darwinian evolution unless or until the inadequacy or incompleteness of Darwinian evolution is recognized. Changing or questioning the single environment assumption, I am suggesting a possibility, might be one way to demonstrate the inadequacy or incompleteness of Darwinian models and theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 18. May 2002 09:00
Warren:
This is perhaps a minor point in relation to what you are saying, but for what it is worth, I think that the scientific community has been well aware of the arguments against Darwinism all along. There have been vigorous attacks on the logical structure of natural selection from day one, beginning with St. George Mivart and Karl Ernst von Baer, on to Samuel Butler, and many, many others too numerous to mention. (See the historical studies by Peter J. Bowler.) The theory has had many ups and downs over the past century and a half, enjoying periods of near unanimous support, only to fall out of favor, and back into favor again. However, even in periods of mainstream acceptance, there have been vocal and well-informed critics in every generation.
I suggest that the problem is not that the superficiality and empirical vacuousness of Darwinian reasoning are not well-known. The problem is that, from a psychological point of view, people have trouble letting go of one theory, no matter how feeble it is, until they have something better in hand. So, things will not change, in my view, until the physical approaches we are seeing beginning to proliferate now mature to the point where they can formulate testable hypotheses in the laboratory (and the predictions are confirmed, naturally!).
When that day comes, I predict that Darwinism will collapse like a house of cards. I don't know how far away we are from that day, but maybe not as far as people think.
[ 18 May 2002, 09:01: Message edited by: James A. Barham ]
IP: Logged
|
|
fish
Member
Member # 213
|
posted 18. May 2002 16:39
I can see why the moderator might be a
little concerned about this thread.
I think several different issues are being tangled together here.
1) Speaking as a population geneticist, I can say that natural selection is absolutely not vacuous. It works from some mechanisms of inheritance (e.g. atomic inheritence) and not for others (e.g. blending inheritance). It works for some environmental conditions (predictable) and not for others (entirely unpredictable). [a slightly different point, Darwin pointed out that it was impossible that different domestic breeds were created independently. But this is exactly what most animal breeders believed. You should not overestimate the obviousness of any basic biological insight.]
2) I am not sure what the logical flaws in the mechanism of natural selection are. I do not believe that anyone can dispute that there are conditions in which natural selection will work.
3) Given that natural selection can work, in some conditions, one explanation for the observed complexity of life is Darwinist mechanisms.
Since we have complexity to observe, one explanation is that the conditions for Natural selection to work do hold.
4) if there are NO OTHER reasonable explanations for observed complexity, then we should conclude that the mechanisms for natural selection to work have held.
5) I would agree that common descent is an empirical $fact$ but Natural selection isnt in the same way. However that doesnt change my [orthodox] perspecitve. In order to displace natural selection from its throne, you need to provide an alternative. Not demonstrate that it works in some situations and not in others. We know that.
IP: Logged
|
|
Lizard
Member
Member # 118
|
posted 18. May 2002 22:11
warren wrote:
quote:
Anyone who has seriously addressed the issue knows that it is essentially impossible to disprove or discredit Darwinian evolution with experimental evidence alone. The bacterial flagellum is excellent example. The suggestion that RM&NS can’t explain flagellum is countered with the argument that with more knowledge there might be an explanation.
I believe you have missed the proposed explanations for the evolution of bacterial flagella. Here's one:
http://minyos.its.rmit.edu.au/~e21092/flagella.htm
As you probably know, the more time has elapsed since the evolution of a structure, the more difficult it is to find "footprints," as it were. However, it is a fact that explanations have been proposed for the evolution of bacterial flagella. Ursula Goodenough did an illustrated lecture on one at a conference I attended. As with most topics in science, more study may always reveal more specifics, and they may confirm or refute details of current explanations, but it is not true that scientists have no explanation for the evolution of bacterial flagella.
I agree with Argon on another thread, who suggested it would be easier and more productive to study more recently evolved structures, since the "footprints" would be more easily discovered.
[ 18 May 2002, 22:13: Message edited by: Lizard ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 18. May 2002 23:49
A quick aside regarding the flagellum and evolutionary pathways. One might also be interested in reading my take:
http://idthink.net/biot/flag1/index.html
I should be soon reposting the other four installments and hope to finish up five more throughout the summer.
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 19. May 2002 10:23
I would likely to briefly interject to first praise James: he is of course correct that Darwinian theory has had to face its good share of intelligent and well-grounded criticisms in its 140+ years. I also agree with him that, given a better alternative, scientists would have no problems accepting it.
The fact that so far they haven't only goes to show that:
a) despite some arguable (and argued) drawbacks, current darwinism-based evolutionary theories DO rather satisfactorily explain the observable data;
b) all the alternative theories proposed so far (and this includes ID in its proud 200 year history) have failed to provide a better. or at least equal, explanatory model for the same data.
As for Warren, I feel his "dynamic environment" argument is rather straw-mannish (or maybe I do not undertand it). I have never seen a biologist make the assumption that an organism adapts "one trait at a time", nor that there isn't a continuous feed-back between organism and environment (such as in the "extended phenotype" concept). Unlike what Warren states, natural selection does not make sense only in the context of stable environments: of course environments change constantly in both unpredictable and predictable (and periodic) ways. That all quantitative studies of adaptation forcibly ignore many variables is just a testament to the limitations of our mathematical capabilities. Otherwise, one would expect a similar criticism of quantitative studies of gravity for routinely ignoring wind and weather factors, altitude, possible collisions with birds etc in their calculations.
Eventually, however, evolution in darwinian terms is defined as the outcome of differential reproductive success, and this is by definition an average over the course of the life of the individual (or gene, or group of individuals, or combination thereof, depending on what "school" you subscribe to). Thus, one can add as many vector components to the calculations as one can comfortably handle, but in darwinian terms the end point will always be a single resulting vector: natural selection.
It is not clear to me if the "dynamic environment" hypothesis proposes that a different type of resulting vector be used to measure evolutionary outcomes, but if the goal is to demonstrate the "the inadequacy or incompleteness of Darwinian models and theories", unless that resulting vector is something different than relative reproductive success, it will still fall underneath Darwin's theoretical umbrella, just with a more sophisticated mathematical treatment.
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 19. May 2002 21:17
Fish wrote:
-----------
"I am not sure what the logical flaws in the mechanism of natural selection are. I do not believe that anyone can dispute that there are conditions in which natural selection will work.
Given that natural selection can work, in some conditions, one explanation for the observed complexity of life is Darwinist mechanisms. Since we have complexity to observe, one explanation is that the conditions for Natural selection to work do hold.
If there are NO OTHER reasonable explanations for observed complexity, then we should conclude that the mechanisms for natural selection to work have held."
---------------
There are three points here: (1) natural selection "works"; (2) natural selection "explains" complexity; and (3) there is no competing theory.
As to (1), yes, we can all agree that where a few variables of population dynamics can be successfully isolated, then sophisticated statistical methods can be successfully applied and predictions made and reproducible experiments performed. Under these circumstances, and to this extent, we can all agree that natural selection "works." Obviously, I would be foolish to quarrel with real, operationally demonstrable science. The question is, What does this tell us about the nature of life? and does it justify the sweeping claims made by philosophers, evolutionary psychologists, and others on behalf of selection theory?
As to (2), I disagree. Nowhere in (1) have any principles been articulated that would cause us to expect complexification. This raises two deeper points.
When I say that natural selection is empirically vacuous, I mean that it is always possible to dream up possible selection-style explanations for any adaptation. So, certainly one can come up with a "Just So Story" for any particular advance from a simpler to a more complex trait, but there is nothing in the operationally indisputable science of (1) that can get us to (2).
Just So Stories are just that---uncontrolled speculation with no operational value whatsoever. The two cases should not be confused. Sure, given the preexistence of something like a bacterium with a complex biochemistry, we can sort of see how some new nutrient can come to utilized. But that is a far cry from saying that we can see how a eukaryote could arise out of a prokaryote. If you object that that is by means of endosymbiosis, then I will say, "Fine, just don't tell me that natural selection explains complexification---endosymbiosis explains complexification, not natural selection." Natural selection in the sense of (1) tells us precious little about how the actual evolution of life occurred. Even you would have to agree, would you not, that the cases where (1) applies are severely limited? In almost all real cases, our knowledge of the relevant dynamical variables, not the mention the nature of their highly nonlinear interactions, simply will not permit any sort of realistic, empirical prediction or reproducible experiment? Correct me if I am wrong.
I said there were two "deeper" points. The other one is the fact the scenario in (1) simply takes for granted the goal-directed organization and perceptual and associative abilities of organisms. It gives no hint as to an explanation for these abilities. But these abilities are the very thing we are trying to explain (at least here at ISCID).
Finally, as for (3), I said as much myself---the majority will never admit their ignorance. It is much easier for us flawed mortals to cling to a myth than to admit that we just don't know. The only trouble with this is, no matter how human and understandable it is, it is blocking the path of progress. We will never solve the problems we refuse to see.
[ 19 May 2002, 21:21: Message edited by: James A. Barham ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic