|
Author
|
Topic: Speciation
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 20. April 2004 08:19
‘Teleological determinism controlled by biological intelligence’, while it may not appeal to most traditional biologists, would appear to be a possible alternative to the genetic determinism assumption. The teleology-intelligence determinism assumption has some interesting implications/predictions for the issue of speciation.
As I mentioned yesterday, teleology-intelligence determinism predicts that an existing species would ‘design and implement’ a species boundary when it was beneficial to establish two separate species. As also discussed, processes or mechanisms which create species boundaries would appear to be very simple. Organisms which have designed wings and nervous systems should have no trouble designing and implementing species boundaries. I would expect or predict that the processes capable of serving as species boundary mechanisms are relatively common.
As has been noted, speciation events appear to be relatively rare. John Davison’s hypothesis depends to a large measure on the fact that there appears to be a lack of convincing evidence for speciation events. In terms of the teleology-intelligence determinism, this means that in most instances speciation is more harmful than beneficial, and that biological intelligence, in most instances, operates to prevent speciation.
Analysis based on the teleology-intelligence determinism assumption considers speciation to be an intelligent decision based on an evaluation of the potential benefits and potential disadvantages of speciation. The available evidence suggests that in most instances speciation is more harmful than beneficial.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 20. April 2004 09:25
Warren, with respect to the substance of your post April 20, 8:19, 04, I have just addressed those matters on post 79 of April 20 on Fernando's thread. There would be no point in repeating myself here.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 20. April 2004 09:50
John,- Your hypothesis and the approach I propose produce very different testable predictions. Specifically, I predict that if you identify or create a situation where 1) speciation is clearly beneficial and 2)where built in constraints preventing speciation can be overcome, then 3)speciation will occur quite rapidly. Your hypothesis, as I understand it, predicts that no such situation capable of producing speciation is possible.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 20. April 2004 13:50
I have repeatedly claimed that sexual reproduction is incapable of trans-specific evolution. I have also claimed that evolution is finished. Neither of these positions has been subjected to rational rebuttal. If something is no longer occurring it can hardly be judged as to whether or not it might be beneficial.
[ 20. April 2004, 13:53: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 22. April 2004 05:57
Scientific analysis involves both collecting facts and interpreting facts. Speciation is an interesting subject because it involves a basic set of known, recognized facts on which most people appear to agree.
The facts that most people appear to be in agreement on include:
1. Many different species exist in the world today.
2. Speciation, the separation of one species into more than one species, has occurred at different times in the past.
3. There is no evidence for a particular point in time when speciation stopped occurring. And
4. Speciation events are relatively rare and difficult to observe in the world today.
While, I believe it is fair to suggest that agreement exists on the above facts, it is not, IMO, be accurate to claim there is agreement on a single ‘correct’ interpretation or group of interpretations of these facts.
Key to the human interpretation of any set of facts is the frame or framework used. A key component of the scientific frame used to interpret speciation facts, is the determinism assumption.
The modern, flexible genetic determinism assumption which accepts many to many and dynamic genotype to phenotype mappings, is compatible with the observed speciation facts, but does not, IMO, seem to provide any interesting or testable predictions. The ‘intelligence based teleological’ determinism (IT determinism?) assumption that I advocate, provides what I consider to be a more interesting and more useful interpretation of speciation facts. Speciation facts interpreted using the IT determinism framework also produce some interesting predictions.
The IT determinism assumption suggests that organisms have the basic capability to design and implement a wide range of adaptive features. However, it also suggests that organisms have the intelligence to decide or determine if a particular design is beneficial (promotes survival) or harmful (leads to extinction). The fact that speciation is relatively rare and difficult to observe, I suggest, demonstrates that 1) while speciation involves relatively simple designs which can be easily generated by organisms, 2) speciation usually has negative long term implications for survival and thus 3) organisms are using intelligence to decide to prevent or avoid speciation.
If evolutionary change does not involve purposeful intelligence, then you would expect and predict that organisms would frequently evolve simple designs which have short term benefits but which are harmful over the long term. Speciation would appear to involve simple designs with near term benefits. The fact that speciation appears to be rare rather than common, suggests that active intelligence is helping organisms see beyond the short term benefits and avoid the long term harm.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 22. April 2004 14:18
Walter.
I see no evidence for an active intelligence at work at the present time. I also see no convincing evidence for the creation of new life forms (true speciation and the formation of higher taxa) at present. Pierre Grasse had an interesting take on this matter and he was certainly no fundamentalist creationist by any means.
"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He no longer has to intervene. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him."
Grasse's emphasis page 166
[ 22. April 2004, 14:19: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 23. April 2004 05:39
John,
If you view evolution as ‘behavior with the goal of survival’, then the phenomena called speciation would be viewed as a manifestation of intelligence. If the goal of evolution is survival, then the short term or immediate goal of evolution would be selection of the optimal form which is best suited for current conditions. This would result in the so called survival of the fittest. Speciation which prevents successful reproduction from interbreeding with less fit forms would benefit the optimization or selection of the fittest process.
However, as intelligent observers, we know that while optimization may have short term benefits, it is likely to be a bad strategy in the long term. Long term survival strategies are better served by avoiding short term optimization and by selecting for variation and adaptability. Long term survival strategies are also better served by avoiding speciation.
For humans and animals, it is considered a sign or manifestation of intelligence if the person or animal can see beyond short term benefits and risks to long term benefits and risks. In a similar manner, a species manifest ‘intelligence’ when it looks beyond short term benefits and avoids unnecessary speciation.
Two points to keep in mind. First, I am suggesting that the factual evidence relating to speciation can be viewed or interpreted in terms of purposeful intelligence. While some may object to the use of this perspective or viewpoint, it is clearly a frame or perspective which humans are capable of using. Second, and more important, I am suggesting that the use of this purposeful intelligence perspective can lead to useful and testable scientific predictions.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 23. April 2004 06:45
Warren
What are these "useful and testable scientific predictions"?
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 24. April 2004 06:28
John,
If you view evolutionary processes as involving purposeful intelligence, then, I propose you can formulate predictive scientific hypotheses using teleological algorithms and a form of scientific determinism that I label intelligence based teleological determinism.
At least two types of ‘useful’ predictions can be produced by this approach. First, if you start with a beneficial adaptive feature of an organisms, then you can predict the existence of evolutionary/adaptive processes or mechanisms capable or generating the adaptive feature in the time frame and under the realistic constraints that must have existed.
If you start with some highly complex phenomena such as the flagellum, then you would predict the existence of some complex and intelligent evolutionary process capable of producing the flagellum. If you start with some very simple feature such as a species boundary which have short term or immediate benefits, and observe that such boundaries are only very rarely produced, then you would predict that there are complex processes and mechanisms which prevent speciation.
It should be noted that from mathematical analysis, we know that there are logical or mathematical operations that would be capable of evolving a flagellum or preventing speciation. Confirming the mechanisms predicted by the purposeful intelligence approach simply means finding physical mechanism that match one or more of the possible mathematical mechanisms.
A second type of useful prediction involves predicting that an observed feature of a biological system represents an intelligent evaluation of the long-term benefits. Speciation is an example of this type of useful prediction.
There are any number of situations where there appears to be at least a short term benefit from speciation. Speciation, for example, might make it more efficient for sub-groups of an existing species to efficiently specialize in separate niches. Speciation might also be an effective method for a species to develop and maintain an optimal form (by making inter-breeding with inferior non-optimal forms unsuccessful). The observed fact that speciation very seldom occurs under such apparently ‘useful’ conditions, leads to the prediction that there non-obvious risks and that the non-occurrence of speciation reflects an intelligent appraisal of both long-term and short-term risks and benefits. This type of prediction, if confirmed, could have important implications for human social behavior. Humans have on occasion attempted to create artificial species boundaries. Nature may be suggesting that such strategies are not compatible with an intelligent appraisal of the long term risks and benefits.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 24. April 2004 08:35
Warren
I am sorry but we are not communicating. First of all, speciation is not occurring under present conditions which, according to the Darwinian (sexual) model should be rampant everywhere. The surviving higher (diploid) life forms are in evolutionary stasis for reasons which I have tried to explain - (Davison 1998 "Evolution as a Self-Limiting Process" Rivista di Biologia 91 199-220). Furthermore, large numbers of species have become extinct in modern times and none, to my knowledge, have been replaced. You are asking why certain events might be of some value. That is purely hypothetical, especially in the face of the reality that those events are in fact not occurring. Also, the scientist asks how not why.
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 24. April 2004 17:04
Can you direct me to some solid evidence that speciation has stopped? Solid evidence has to have three parts: first, a prediction of the rate of current speciation if it were occuring at historical rates; second, a prediction of what evidence that rate of speciation would leave behind; and third, data showing that the expected evidence is missing.
I thought I might be able to find something by Grasse, but I couldn't find anywhere where he addressed the first and second points.
These points are critical since it replaces naive intuition (which may be--and often is--wrong, especially in biological sciences) with a direct consideration of evidence.
There also seem to be examples of evolution occurring very recently. The cichlids of Lake Victoria, for example, appear to have done an awful lot of speciating, possibly only in the last 14,000 years or so (since many species are found only there, and the lake appears to have dried up during the last ice age).
[ 24. April 2004, 17:05: Message edited by: Rex Kerr ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 24. April 2004 22:06
It is my conviction that all true speciation was instantaneous and was based on the release of endogenous genetic information. I have reached this perspective through an extension of the independent conclusions of William Bateson, Leo Berg and Pierre Grasse all of whom recognized the role of internal forces in directing evolutionary change. The cytogenetic mechanisms involved in the evolution of the Cichlids you mention are of course unknown. The Semi-meiotic Hypothesis and the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis both recognize this alternative explanation for evolutionary change. I have reached this view through the time honored method of eliminating alternative hypotheses. Since both neoDarwinism and Lamarckism have proven to be total experimental and descriptive failures, I see no other conceivable way to regard the origin of biological diversity. Viewed in this light both ontogeny and phylogeny have been just as predetermined and subject to law as have been the inanimate sciences of mathematics, physics and chemistry upon which all of life is based. In short, evolution was exactly as Berg characterized it in the complete title of his book "Nomogenesis or Evolution Determined by Law". I realize this is unacceptable to the doctrinaire Darwinian, but it represents my present position on the great mystery of evolution. I am confident that neoDarwinism will soon join Lamarckism as little more than an historical curiosity. When that occurs it will prove to be an enormous source of embarassment to both the Darwinians and their arch adversaries, the literal creatonists, since both camps will have been proven to be dead wrong.
[ 26. April 2004, 11:00: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 24. April 2004 23:48
In other words, no, you won't direct me to any solid evidence that speciation has stopped.
Warren might consider how his theories could be tested using cichlids; they are one of the largest and most recent examples of speciation. I have difficulty translating his hypotheses into predictions that might discriminate his hypotheses from others, though, so I'll have to leave that to him.
(Sadly, Lake Victoria is suffering from overfishing, environmental damage, and introduced species, all of which has already caused the extinction of probably over a hundred species, with many more on the way out. We may soon lose this valuable living record of recent extensive speciation.)
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 25. April 2004 05:16
Why doesn't Rex Kerr or someone else direct me to solid evidence that speciation is in progress? Which species are currently in a state of transformation? How long does that process take? I have claimed speciation was instantaneous and have presented the evidence supporting that conclusion.(Davison, J. 2003, "The Case for Instant Evolution", Rivista di Biologia 96:203-206). Has anyone challenged that conclusion? If not, why not? Why does a scientific literature even exist? Apparently it is so it can be ignored by those that have already made up their minds about an event which has never been directly observed. That is not science. That is raw unrestrained ideology.
[ 25. April 2004, 05:20: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 25. April 2004 08:48
Evolution controlled by purposeful intelligence or speciation determined by purposeful intelligence is, IMO, a legitimate example of an ID type hypotheses. The speciation controlled by purposeful intelligence predicts that in general speciation will occur when an intelligent appraisal of both the long-term and the short-term benefits and risks suggests that speciation is the intelligent choice. Just as important, the proposed hypothesis predicts that purposeful intelligence will prevent speciation in situations where it is not the intelligent choice.
Speciation, I suggest, provides a useful subject for studying the role of purposeful intelligence in evolution, because there is such a large discrepancy between 1)the simplicity of the design needed to produce species borders(which suggests that speciation should be a very common and easily observed phenomena) and 2)the low actual frequency of observed speciation (design implementation).
The type of situation that Rex describes at Lake Victoria and the type of situation Darwin observed in the Galapagos Islands both appear to involve 1)a limited number of initial species, 2)a number of different available niches favoring different physical shapes, and 3)significant survival disadvantages for intermediate forms not adapted to a specific niche. At least on the surface, these would seem to be the types of situations where speciation is the intelligent choice.
Quote Rex: I have difficulty translating his hypotheses into predictions that might discriminate his hypotheses from others
Is there an existing hypothesis that predicts that ‘evolution will produce the intelligent choice or solution from the available options’? Existing hypotheses can be reconciled to observed evolutionary results, but can they actually predict changes that will occur?
It is not always easy to distinguish between facts, interpretations of facts, and predictions. ‘Speciation is uncommon and difficult to observe and document’ would appear to be a fact. ‘Speciation has stopped’ would appear to be a prediction produced by a particular hypothesis. The prediction might appear to be consistent with very recent data, but as Rex points out, the validity of the prediction does not appear to be compatible with data covering periods of a few thousand years.
As I mentioned earlier, it should be possible to create a species barrier using a very simple design. The ‘speciation has stopped’ prediction could be contradicted by showing that 1) simple species barrier mechanisms exist in nature and 2)that such mechanisms can be artificially implemented under appropriate conditions.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
