|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 25. May 2006 10:41
Bruce, with regard to the H1s I wonder whether you agree with my calculation of 22nd May, that it is quite reasonable (with the mutation rates such as we have) that a significant fraction of the 8 different H1 subtypes are as they were when they were introduced – perhaps 65My ago at the time of the introduction of mammals? The remaining fraction may have some deleterious mutation and thus make gene products of poor quality – and yet this does not matter because the still pristine genes are the ones at work keeping the best form of H1 gene products. If there had not been 8 pristine genes in the first place the H1 gene would have wandered stochastically and would by now be producing less than perfect products (and NS may not be able to keep the quality sufficiently). On the other hand a gene such as H4 has to produce a highly specific protein if there is to be any reproduction at all – and as such it self conserves through NS – and in this case there is no need to maintain accuracy by having multiple gene copies. What I am saying is – perhaps there are two modes of keeping gene product accuracy, NS or multiple gene copies. What do you think? P.B. am I talking nonsense or is this possible? Chris
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 25. May 2006 13:44
Hi Chris,
I remember you also asked where I got my 1% nucleotide mutations per million years. I found what I believe to be the bibliography(see bibliography entry #29.) I will say, however, that Brown seems to have done a lot of work with the molecular clock hypothesis. This reference seems to be out-dated, and the clock seems to tick at different rates based upon a number of factors. This, however, reasserts that the phylogenic tree rendered in the cytochrome C is puzzling. Why would the silkworm moth (40%) diverge from wheat by the same amount as the horse (41%) does (Denton, Evolution a Theory in Crisis, p. 279). Should the insect line, which has a very short generation time, and very small size not have diverged by a greater amount than the horse whose entire lineage is is both larger and slower reproducing?
In general, though, I believe that PB needs to re-enter this discussion because this is his thesis. I am a software developer, not a scientist. As a software developer I am painfully busy. I also have not had time to check out Zachriel's links discussing the H1 and H4 genes.
I personally am finding it to be unlikely that a gene could survive for 65my without the protection of natural selection. My view is based upon what I understand about the molecular clock hypothesis. If my 1% per My is correct, we can also see that "working" genes experience a molecular clock rate that is much slower than 1% per mil. If the hypothesis is correct, and it must be to get the cytochrome C's phylogenic tree, one can therefore conclude that the difference between a particular gene's clock and the random clock indicates the ratio of destructive to non-destructive mutations. So if a gene's clock ticks at 1% per 10 mil, then 9 out of 10 mutations are destructive for that gene. Such a gene would be a particularly fast drifting gene, indicating that in coding dna, the vast majority of mutations are destructive.
PB, where are you. Your thesis needs professional level defending!
[ 25. May 2006, 13:45: Message edited by: Bruce Fast ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. May 2006 14:51
Thanks for all the support folks. It is what I have learned to expect.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 25. May 2006 20:10
John, We are discussing on this thread whether Darwinian style evolution can be falsified. The only way to take a certain (undisputed) prediction of Darwinian evolution, show it to be false, and thus to negate the theory.
Darwinian theory -> Bioinformation goes up gradually and mechanistically with time
ID theory -> Bioinformation is suddenly input and then goes down with time.
Darwinian theory ----Chance plays a major role in driving evolution
ID theory ---- Chance plays a role as a bioinformation degenerator
Thus if we can show that chance only downgrades bioinformation we disprove Darwinian theory and affirm ID theory. I thus conclude that studying the effects of chance (Stochastic processes) is important in this discussion. The PEH also suggests that bioinformation came into our universe sometime in the past and has been downgrading (i.e. causing extinctions) ever since. Agree? Chris
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 25. May 2006 21:28
Chris: "ID theory -> Bioinformation is suddenly input and then goes down with time."
Though ID theory does call for bioinformation to be suddenly input, I think that lots of IDers don't disreguard the possibility that some of the bioinformation that exists was developed fully by the mechanism of RM+NS.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 25. May 2006 23:44
John: quote:
Thanks for all the support folks. It is what I have learned to expect.
John, I know that I asked to keep PBs discussion going, but the gauntlet laid down by Melvin H. Fox, re your position that there is no recorded mammal (true biological) speciation since Homo Sapien needs also to not get lost. I, however, think it would be a shame to start a separate thread over it because of all that has transpired on this thread.
Where we sit at the moment is that Zachriel, clearly a well studied NDE evolutionist, is attempting to provide evidence in opposition to your position. I am quite intrigued at his inability to just pull evidence off the top of his head.
So far you are winning this one hands down.
Seems that Zachriel almost agrees with your position as well. Consider the following dialog (back on page 14 of this thread)
quote:
quote:
Bruce Fast: "So you are saying that evolution has grinded to a halt, that it will only reignite activity if a catastrophy happens?"
Zachriel: "and to fill new niches created as the biosphere evolves."
I know, for Zachriel to agree with you that evolution has (virtually) grinded to a halt is almost sacrilege. If you read his quote, he tries to rescue himself, but it doesn't really work.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. May 2006 06:09
I have requested a new thread specifically for the purpose of presenting my several unanswered challenges to the Darwinian fairy tale. If such a thread does not appear it will provide a clear and unambiguous answer to my request. It will also indicate that my challenges can not be answered. Either way I win and "brainstorms" loses. It is as simple as that. I have no further comment. Carry on.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 26. May 2006 12:03
John, a portion of your position is being actively debated on this thread. Or, more accurately, Zachriel seems to be stumped.
If you want a thread that is broader than this discussion, I highly recommend that you start it yourself. That way you can write the initial post, defining the scope of the discussion (though we do tend to wander down rabbit trails.)
I know you are more comfortable with biology than you are with computers (that's obvious from your newprescribedevolution.blogspot.com. As Zachriel said, instead of responding to a post by clicking the "Post Reply" button, below, click the one to the left of it labeled "New Topic". That's all there is to it.
IP: Logged
|
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 26. May 2006 13:14
Dr. Davison,
I started a new thread titled 'The role of chance in biological evolution.' Please present there the evidence that disproves chance as a factor in evolution.
Sandor
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 27. May 2006 06:51
Science does not proceed by disproving unnecessary assumptions. It proceeds by demonstrating what can be established experimentally. Every concerted effort that has ever been attempted to transform species through random allelic mutation has failed. Such efforts are no longer even being attempted. The exponents of such a pardigm have grown tired of chronic failure and I have grown tired of reminding them.
Everything that we are now learning pleads in favor of an entirely predetermined, emergent evolution in which chance played no role whatsoever. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason to even imagine that a creative evolution is even in progress any more.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 27. May 2006 08:54
quote:
Though ID theory does call for bioinformation to be suddenly input, I think that lots of IDers don't disreguard the possibility that some of the bioinformation that exists was developed fully by the mechanism of RM+NS.
Bruce, thanks for making me aware of this. My understanding of the Philosophy of science is that we must never assume that we have the ultimate theory – all theories are up for test –right? Even good theories can be improved upon. The other side of the coin, however, is that you have to have a well defined theory to test. A theory cannot be “wishy-washy” – predicting everything or nothing. In this respect I thought it a central tenant of ID theory that RM +NS could not produce bio-information. I thought William Dembski had demonstrated this quite neatly in his book “no free lunch”. I have not read any disproof of this theoretical position – which is that Stochastic processes only downgrade functional information (with deterministic ones conserving it). It would seem to me that if some IDers want to hold that RM+NS can produce some new bioinformation (functional novelty on the phenotype) then
(i) they should show the error in Dembski’s formalism
(ii) they should show empirical evidence of RM +NS having produce new bio-information. I am not aware of any.
In addition, there is also a separate philosophical question of how you can talk about intelligent design if even just part of the design is produced by random (i.e. as in non planned) mutation? This is a separate question to the science. This subject seems of very great importance and I would really like to see it discussed. Chris
[ 27. May 2006, 08:55: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 27. May 2006 10:05
Melvin H. Fox: "You say the mechanisms for speciation are known [esp. allopatric speciation]. How are they known?"
REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION
It can be observed that not all organisms will normally exchange genes. Reproductive isolation can be observed to be a gradient and subject to various exceptions. Even organisms long regarded as distinct species have been known to interbreed. Fertility in offspring is also a continuum. Gene flow between populations is the determinant.
MECHANISMS of EVOLUTION
We can observe evolution as the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. We can observe and induce genetic mutations. We can observe and induce selection. We can use statistical tools to determine when alleles are under selection or drift. Genetic algorithms model evolutionary processes.
COMMON DESCENT
The observed nested hierarchy of morphology, embryonics, microbiology, genomics and the succession of fossils is strong evidence of common descent, genomics being considered particularly conclusive by nearly all scientists working the field.
HYPOTHESIS of SPECIATION
The Theory of Common Descent implies that organisms that are now reproductively isolated share a common ancestor. Hence we can predict there is a mechanism of reproductive isolation. We call this posited mechanism "speciation". (Caution: 'Species' is an old concept and has several related definitions.)
TIME and SPECIATION
From the fossil evidence, evolution and diversification is a process that occurs over geological time-scales. Hence, speciation could take long periods of time and complete reproductive isolation may be a gradual process or even oscillate between isolation and hybridization. As complete reproductive isolation could take thousands or millions of years, it must be tested through the scientific process of hypothesis, prediction and by its explanatory power.
GEOGRAPHY
Allopatric speciation occurs when organisms are isolated by changes in geography. We would predict that species in geographically related regions would be closely related biologically. Analysis of spatial distributions of organisms has confirmed this prediction (and has been so fruitful that is has even developed into a distinct scientific discipline). The basic tenets of biogeography are
* Organisms need particular environmental conditions.
* Organisms originate in one place, and only once; they must move to other places.
* Barriers to migration may prevent organisms from passing from one habitable place to another.
From these tenets, predictions can be made and should apply even over geological time. As the continents have moved, this has had a profound effect on dispersal patterns. Combining knowledge of plate tectonics and other geological activities with biology, there is ample evidence of biological divergence as continents and other land masses have moved across the planet's surface. This has also spawned a subdiscipline, paleobiogeography. Isolated islands tend to have colonizing birds and insects occupying the niches normally taken by other animals and form the familiar nested hierarchy of morphology on near islands, and with mainland organisms, a subdiscipline known as Island Biogeography.
Other mechanisms of speciation include parapatric, peripatric, sympatric, polyploidal and hybridization. Each mechanism entails its own set of empirical predictions. Sometimes this speciation can be rapid. Rapid speciation is common in sexually deceptive plants, such as orchids; in polyploidal plants, such as grasses; or in hybridization of flowering plants. There is a great deal of scientific research concerning speciation, and most scientists have little doubt that speciation does occur. Modern research concerns the details of speciation and the relationships between different mechanisms.
On the origin of species by sympatric speciation
Song Learning Accelerates Allopatric Speciation
Ecology and Speciation
Sympatric speciation suggested by monophyly of crater lake cichlids
BEAK of the FINCH
One of the most detailed studies of reproductive isolation in natural populations was a decades long study by the Grants who lived with small populations of Galápagos Finches. Their detailed records show how once homogeneous strains became more and more reproductively isolated as they were forced to specialize during periods of stress in order to maximize the available resources. During times of reduced stress, reproductive isolation was replaced by a tendency to hybridize increasing gene flow. There is no mechanism which prevents continued divergence, but divergence appears to be a result of environmental conditions. These observations are consistent with what would be expected by incipient speciation.
(Cites are not meant to be comprehensive. There is a huge amount of research in this area.)
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 27. May 2006 10:36
Christopher D. Beling: "I must refer you to a review article by Sergey Gavrilets ... 'Instead of a sound mathematical theory of speciation'"
That's quite a bit out of context. Gavrilets acknowledges the utility of current mathematical models, suggests problems with the current models, points to a deficit of a general mathematical model of speciation, and then proceeds to provide one.
Models of Speciation: "Theoretical studies of speciation have been dominated by numerical simulations aiming to demonstrate that speciation in a certain scenario may occur. What is needed now is a shift in focus to identifying more general rules and patterns in the dynamics of speciation."
Christopher D. Beling: "The empirical observation of 'Punctuated equilibrium' is often put forward as a 'theory' of speciation, but it is no such thing because it is quite at variance with what we know in population genetics"
The fossil succession shows a continuum over most epochs to the level of plausible resolution. The lack of species transitions may simply be due to the poor resolution of the data at that level, and due to the chaotic nature of speciation.
Punctuated equilibrium was not proposed to fix any problem with models of speciation, but to account for the perceived lack of these species transitions. Most researchers do not believe that punctuated equilibrium is required to explain most of the fossil record, but may still have occurred under some circumstances. As speciation is observed to be chaotic, the final answer will probably be complex.
Nor is punctuated equilibrium at variance with population genetics, or it wouldn't be given any credence by other researchers. The hypothesis does not imply that populations would be so small as to be unsustainable. And it is known that small groups can indeed populate isolated islands and form unique populations. For instance, mice may speciate rapidly when first colonizing an island.
Bruce fast: "I know, for Zachriel to agree with you that evolution has (virtually) grinded to a halt is almost sacrilege."
Data is data. However, that is not what the evidence shows. Evolution continues; in fact, has accelerated due to human influences. Evolution is subject to (scale invariant) fits and starts as would be expected.
Christopher D. Beling: "they should show the error in Dembski’s formalism"
Dembski is very confused on the No Free Lunch Theorem and conflates it with some other notion of his. But that should be in another thread.
[ 27. May 2006, 10:47: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 27. May 2006 11:55
As for the role of natural selection, I will let others speak for me.
"The struggkle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis. page 406.
"In all the research since 1869 on the transformations observed in closely successive phyletic series, no evidence whatever, to my knowledge, has been brought forward by any paleontologist, either if the vertebrated or invertebrated animals, that the fit originates by selection from the fortuitous."
Henry Fairfield Osborn, quoted in Nomogenesis page 127.
"Natural selection is a real factor in connection with mimicry, but its function is to conserve and render preponderant an ALREADY EXISTENT likeness, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations, as is so generally assumed."
Reginald C. Punnett, Mimicry in Butterflies, page 152. (my emphasis)
So much for natural selection and so much for convergent evolution as well. They are both Darwinian myths.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 27. May 2006 12:23
John: quote:
So much for natural selection and so much for convergent evolution as well. They are both Darwinian myths.
Reguarding convergence, while I fully agree with you that the standard NDE explanation for the phenomenon is weak to the point of being silly, the phenomenon of convergence certainly exists. However, I see this phenomenon as support for intelligent design. We certainly see designers produce "like designs" all of the time. A Picasso looks like a Picasso. Further, I find that the PEH would naturally produce the phenomenon of convergence.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
