|
Author
|
Topic: Proposed algorithm for evolution by ID
|
Carl
Member
Member # 677
|
posted 13. April 2003 00:42
Yersina quoted:
quote:
Krishtalka & Stucky (1985) documented smooth transitions in the common early Eocene artiodactyl genus Diacodexis.<snip>
My time has been very limited recently, and it shows no sign of giving me more, but I will do what I can.
I did a little more research in the above paper, although I was not able to find the original. Kathlene Hunt, who provided the Talk.Origins FAQ, had a little more to say. The paper talked about some speciations which followed Darwin's proposed idea almost exactly. The organism gradually changed over 4 million years, showing mosaic changes. That is, a tooth, say, would change, then a skull, then maybe a jaw or a leg. This, they said, was microevolution - and I agree. Other fossil series in the same areas showed stasis and macroevolution (their term). Their use of those terms seems to agree with my definition of one or few DNA base changes in microevolution, and multiple base changes - perhaps 1000 or more - for macroevolution. They commented that a fossil had to be found every 25,000 years to follow the microevolution. They also differentiated between the fossils that showed stasis and jumpwise speciation (macroevolution), and those that showed gradual change over 4 million years (microevolution). This highlights some problems with the current theory.
The gradual speciation/microevolution evidently happens in the main group of the species, and natural selection acts upon the mutation as soon as it occurs. Conventional theory, however, talks of 'purifying selection' and the tendency of a large group to prevent mutations from being expressed. That is partly how they explain stasis, if I understand correctly. Now there is an example of Darwin's proposal being fulfilled exactly. Either mutations are acted upon when they happen, or they are not. How do biologists explain the difference?
Microevolution is slow - 4 million years for speciation - while the fossil record gives only a few thousand years for speciation to 'sneak in' between fossil finds.
Environment is invoked to explain speciation (in a small group, because a large group will not allow change) according to modern theory. Yet there is no evidence in the gradual microevolution that environment is involved at all. It is just the random mutation being selected by natural processes.
Thus the 1985 paper highlights the problems with the modern synthesis, and it's attempts to explain why the long stasis and short speciation time. I see more problems for Darwin than I do answers in this research.
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 14. April 2003 17:04
Did you actually mean to say this?
quote:
Yet there is no evidence in the gradual microevolution that environment is involved at all. It is just the random mutation being selected by natural processes.
Interacting with the local environment is a natural process, and one's survival unavoidably depends on that environment. Perhaps you were trying to point out something else?
IP: Logged
|
|
Carl
Member
Member # 677
|
posted 14. April 2003 22:14
Rex wrote:
quote:
Interacting with the local environment is a natural process, and one's survival unavoidably depends on that environment. Perhaps you were trying to point out something else?
The study of 'Darwin's finches' on the Galapagos Islands is an excellent study of the effects of environment on species. The size of the beak of one variety of finch varied over the length of the study according to cycles of drouth and rain, but there was _no_ evolution! The environment made certain alleles more valuable than others, and natural selection provided appropriate reproductive success for those characters. But the mix of variants within the genome of the finch remained the same with different proportions.
In order to have evolution, there must be changes to the genome. Environment is a short term phenomenon (a few lifetimes at the most), while mutation is a long term process - thousands of years for any change.
To state it in a different way, variation built into the genome provides flexible response capability for changing conditions. It unquestionably enhances probability of survival. However, it is not evolution, because mutation does not happen. It requires mutation for heritable change in an organism.
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 15. April 2003 01:24
So Carl, is it your position that change can be reached by random process of mutation? In other words it matters not what is selected out, such mutation can lead to the changes we see?
Or are you also arguing that there is a problem with mutation leading to such change?
You see the problem I have with that is as follows:
Mutations are clearly a building process, where the next mutation is built on the last. This is a simple logical observation based on our observation that the genome or characteristics of the next generation are largely based on the last, but that mutations do exist that cause changes that are not strictly inherited. That being the case, such changes (mutations) must be based on the present characteristics of the present generation (from a viewpoint perspective).
Now the selection effect affects what is the present generation -- and by that what is the present base for the mutation for the next generation.
So Carl, are you saying that the mutations (of a previous generation) for the next generation (after that) had nothing to do with which previous mutations are still around for future generations? In other words are all points reachable by mutation, without regard to whether they pass through an intermediate of a surviving member of the population? Or are there limits on what is reachable which is additionally a limit on what mutation can produce?
And if that limit exists, how does it depend on how well the present generation is able to reproduce in the present environment? Do organisms that have a greater frequency of reproduction have a greater chance of producing offspring with mutations based on their particular "state" as starting point?
Do mutations (and other genetic combination processes) create the information of what can be? And selection captures the information of “what works”?
Are these kinds of information actually not meaningful when they are observed, as in the information of “what works” being captures by selection actually being demonstrated by observation in the finch observation?
(I think that the finch observation is held out specifically as an observation of selections, not an observation of mutation. I have seen Phillip Johnson use this example many times to claim that evolution does not occur. In fact the argument was presented almost the same way.)
[ 15. April 2003, 10:48: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 16. April 2003 02:34
Sorry for the delay in responding. My father passed away recently and I went to the funeral out of town.
Carl,
I did not mean to sidetrack your discussion. My point about the SLoT is relevant to your discussion. I think it is the heart of the matter concerning the impossibility of macroevolution. I will respond to a couple points here which need clarification.
Yersinia,
The voodoo thermodynamics link is propaganda. The issue of hot things cooling down does not have any relevance to the subject. Certainly hot things will cool down without an auxiliary device, but the opposite will not occur -- something that does have relevance to macroevolution. You need an auxiliary device to decrease entropy and at the same time move away from equilibrium. Your argument is like saying that you can defy gravity and them you drop a ball to the ground as evidence to support your claim -- it isn't rational. Basicly, the auxiliary device constrains the boundary conditions allowing specified processes. To be more clear, I should have stated that entropy cannot decrease spontaneously (move away from equilibrium), without an auxiliary device. This should be obvious though.
Frances,
Adami and Cerf concede that the definition of complexity is only vaguely defined. They say:
quote:
The study of "complex systems", or more generally the science of "complexity", has enjoyed tremendous growth in the last decade, despite the fact that complexity itself is only vaguely defined, and many alternatives have been proposed over the years.
They admit that their analysis concerning evolution is questionable. They say,
quote:
While we have an intuitive feeling that such an evolution towards higher complexity is responsible for the emergence of higher and higher organisms throughout time, such a statement must be questionable as long as there is no unambiguous measure of complexity.
I commend Adami and Cerf for their honesty concerning their work. Certainly, Darwinists cannot be dogmatic when the papers they present for evidence for Neo-Darwinism have such statements. Intuition is not scientific fact! Also, one must understand the difference between the potential for specified information compared to the actual specified information of the "genome machine" called life.
The problem about mutations, natural selection, life and the environment being the auxiliary device for Neo-Darwinian evolution, is the stochiastic nature of the device -- coupled with the low probability. The enviroment lacks the specification to constrain the problem. You may find the words "I am here" written in the sand on a beach. You may claim that the action of the waves acting on the sand is the auxiliary device. Although, it may be possible for the waves to create the words written in the sand, the probability of such an event is too small. The number of possible configurations that don't conform to the words written in the sand vastly outnumber the possible ways that the sand can form the words. Basicly, the wave action on the beach lacks the specified boundary conditions to write the words. The same can be said concerning the environment and macroevolution. Neo-Darwinists must account for the "specification" of life to reconcile the SLoT with Darwinism.
I will not post anymore on this thread given that Carl seemed to infer that the discussion was off topic. I felt compelled to respond to some of the posts, though. Thanks for your patience Carl.
EDIT: Note that when I refer to the decrease of entropy, I mean a localized decrease of entropy.
The sum total of the entropy will need to increase. The constrained boundary conditions allows one subsystem to have a decrease in entropy at the expense of the larger system which has an increase in entropy greater than the decrease.
[ 19. April 2003, 18:02: Message edited by: kyle7 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Carl
Member
Member # 677
|
posted 18. April 2003 01:10
Gedanken asked:
quote:
So Carl, is it your position that change can be reached by random process of mutation? In other words it matters not what is selected out, such mutation can lead to the changes we see?
Change is of two types, microevolution and macroevolution. Yersinia quoted from the transitional fossil FAQ from Talk.Origins, referencing Krishtalka & Stucky (1985) They describe, in those terms, two different types of fossil successions. Microevolution was shown in a series of gradual mosaic changes that took 4 million years for speciation. It is also shown in a number of studies of, for example, grasshoppers that spread from a small original population to cover a large territory. Minor changes are noted as they spread, from random mutations that become incorporated. These remain the same kind of orgainim, and usually continue to be able to interbreed.
When the fossils they studied showed stasis for millions of years, followed by a different (but related) species with no intermediate mosaic evolution, they called this macroevolution. It is impossible to assign any time period for macroevolution, although the maximum time could probably be estimated. I have not seen any attempt to determine this figure, probably because the proposed Darwinian mechanism makes that time period irrelevant.
quote:
Mutations are clearly a building process, where the next mutation is built on the last.
This would apply to both micro and macroevolution. However, generally microevolution will not result in a different species. Macroevolution, as I have proposed it, requires multiple simultaneous mutations, so that speciation will occur within a single generation. This will build upon what is available, and will make a stepwise progression that we see in the fossil record. Only the required DNA bases will be changed, so that the variation in the species will be retained.
quote:
So Carl, are you saying that the mutations (of a previous generation) for the next generation (after that) had nothing to do with which previous mutations are still around for future generations? In other words are all points reachable by mutation, without regard to whether they pass through an intermediate of a surviving member of the population? Or are there limits on what is reachable which is additionally a limit on what mutation can produce?
MIcroevolution must have a step-by-step chain for each mutation. If some step is fatal or detrimental, there would be no way to jump such a configuration. That is one problem with Darwin's proposal that slow mutations result in major speciation (macroevolution) - if there is no continuous chain the change cannot occur.
Macroevolution has constraints, but as any number of DNA bases can be changed the constraints are imposed by the future goals and physical differences. Obviously feathers would be difficult to follow fur in a single step.
quote:
Do organisms that have a greater frequency of reproduction have a greater chance of producing offspring with mutations based on their particular "state" as starting point?
Reproductive success has great effect on microevolution, but as macroevolution is determined by design the initial configuration of the organism is not tested by selection. However, as soon as the organism is living, it has to be able to compete.
I concur that the Galapagos finches are not an example of evolution/mutation, but I would not use them to say that evolution could not occur. They are an excellent example of natural selection.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic