It's worth repeating that if Charles Darwin had explained that evolution proceeds in fits and starts, his theory would have been ridiculed from the start. Imagine if Darwin had explained that, according to his theory of evolution, species rapidly appear as if planted there, and then go unchanged for eons. Darwin would have been laughed off the stage. Darwin had to present a narrative of gradualism. Funny thing is, the fits-and-starts narrative is today precisely what evolutionists tell us.Evolutionists have tried to justify the fits-and-starts narrative with evidence of rapid changes in fish morphology. Problem is, those rapid changes are too rapid. They are a sign of a built-in adaptive capability rather than a lucky accident which evolutionists envision. New research on stickleback fish continues to tell this story. As one evolutionist explained:
There are six and perhaps eight stickleback species, all in the Northern Hemisphere. They live in Europe; coastal North America north from northern Mexico on the Pacific and north from New York on the Atlantic; and all over coastal northern Asia. Like salmon, many live in the sea and swim upstream to spawn. Others live in lakes.
After Ice Age glaciers started melting some 15,000 to 20,000 years ago, sea-going sticklebacks swam up streams to newly formed lakes. Many populations of ninespine and threespine sticklebacks were trapped in lakes, creating an experiment in evolution.
They adapted very quickly and dramatically to these new freshwater environments," says Shapiro. "Some of the changes include shifts in body shape and size, the amount of armor on their bodies and, occasionally, complete loss of major structures like the pelvis. That's the equivalent of us losing our legs."
Such rapid adaptations do not help us understand why the fossil record is characterized by the rapid appearance of new species followed by eons of no change.
Evolutionists are devious. They use the genetically pre-programmed capabilities of various species for rapid adaptation as evidence for Darwinian evolution. The unwary easily falls for that ruse but not everybody is fooled. The evolutionist camp is filled with pseudoscientists, crackpots and outright liars with a hidden agenda. They get away with their shenanigans because they have somehow managed to take over the educational system.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it would be a mistake to suppose that this sort of crackpottery is a rarity in other fields of science. The physics community rivals and even surpasses the Darwinists in the level of absurdity that they can get away with. Just a few days ago, some crackpot physicist by the name of Nikodem Poplawski announced to the world that the universe is inside a wormhole, which is inside a black hole that lies within a much larger universe full other black holes, wormholes, crackpot physicists and other universes. I swear I am not making any of this stuff up. But this sort of hogwash is common fare in the physics community (remember the story of the time traveling particle that sabotaged the super collider?). Only physicists seem to get away with going public with such blatant, in-your-face Star-Trek voodoo science.
Did anyone actually see the stickleback evolve?
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: It's worth repeating that if Charles Darwin had explained that evolution proceeds in fits and starts, his theory would have been ridiculed from the start.
ReplyDeleteDarwin: Many species when once formed never undergo any further change but become extinct without leaving modified descendants; and the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they have retained the same form.
Just sounds like a modern version of the old pepper moth and galapogos finch examples. Varied expression, back and forth, of pre-existing genetic information based on natural selection, but no new information created. Moths remained moths, finches are still finches, and sticklebacks are still sticklebacks.
ReplyDeletehttp://creation.com/stickleback-evolution
Thanks for proving evolution.
ReplyDeleteVestigal organs get weeded out because they cost energy to use. This would be more of an example of why punctuated equilibrium may be true, that adaptations can occur relatively quickly (using a geologic timescale) due to environmental stress.
Also Frampton, give it 3 billion years ;)
You guys seriously have to ask yourself what the point would be for God to allow the existence of a minuscule stickleback fish, let alone different species. What you would have to believe, as Darwin pointed out, that some parasitic insect species that live inside worms and eat their organs from the inside have been designed with some type of cosmic importance. Nothing works without the understanding of "every species for itself".
ReplyDelete"You guys seriously have to ask yourself what the point would be for God to allow the existence of a minuscule stickleback fish, let alone different species."
ReplyDeleteWow, just WOW! I seriously cant believe that these evo's cant grasp that a statement like this is the EXACT POINT OF THIS BLOG!
Be a sport, Darren, and explain what God had in mind when he created tapeworms.
ReplyDeleteVery good article
ReplyDelete@ EH and David,
ReplyDeleteWhy are you immediately switching to a theological argument? I thought you guys like to stick to science. How about we avoid a lengthy debate over the interpretation of the fall of man, and stick with sticklebacks?
The point, is that sticklebacks are touted as evidence of rapid evolution in action, when in reality they are evidence of natural selection in action. Selection NOT of random mutation in this case mind you, but selection of pre-existing genetic information.
There have always been black and white pepper moths, finches with varied beak shapes, and sticklebacks with different armor. Evolution requires the explanation of new information. This has zero to do with vestigial organs.
Frampton: Selection NOT of random mutation in this case mind you, but selection of pre-existing genetic information.
ReplyDeleteRather, modification of existing genetic information, i.e. evolution.
Colosimo, Widespread Parallel Evolution in Sticklebacks by Repeated Fixation of Ectodysplasin Alleles, Science 2005:
Members of this clade of low-plated alleles are present at low frequencies in marine fish, which suggests that standing genetic variation can provide a molecular basis for rapid, parallel evolution of dramatic phenotypic change in nature.
EH:
ReplyDelete===
You guys seriously have to ask yourself what the point would be for God to allow the existence of a minuscule stickleback fish, let alone different species. What you would have to believe, as Darwin pointed out, that some parasitic insect species that live inside worms and eat their organs from the inside have been designed with some type of cosmic importance. Nothing works without the understanding of "every species for itself".
===
That's a strong point, but ineffective against science. I know the science doesn't always fulfill what we want to believe, but the evidence is the evidence.
David:
ReplyDelete===
Be a sport, Darren, and explain what God had in mind when he created tapeworms.
===
Ditto.
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteYou know, I was really hesitant to post on this blog because I don't have a science background. But since I'm being asked to believe all sorts of things by the "experts" these days, I try to read quite a bit so I can maintain independent thought on the subject...however
"standing genetic variation can provide a molecular basis for rapid, parallel evolution of dramatic phenotypic change in nature."
So STANDING genetic variation (arising by....evolution?) provides a molecular basis for rapid, parallel....evoluton?...(that's got a circular ring to it)
Thats just another way of saying that dog breeds are an example of molecules to man's-best-friend evolution. I'm sure if you left two separated groups of malamutes unattended in Death Valley for a few generations with only water and Puppy Chow, you'd find a mostly short-haired version in both locations when you returned. If the genome had not been completely purged by that time, you could put them back in the Yukon, and watch their hair come back. They'll never be observed in parallel turning into long-haired hippies however. Not before The Big Crunch anyway.
Every time you put sticklebacks in freshwater they lose armor...doesn't sound very random or proof of much of anything. If it only happened one time, then you'd have something compelling to talk about. Instead, you have a pattern, and we know what patterns usually indicate...
We're not getting anywhere. 100 years later and we're still talkin' peppered moths at the end of the day.
You could be right I guess, but until we have EH's 3 billion years to observe it, it remains nothing more than a model...far, far from a fact.
The arguement cannot be advanced until we get past examples of natural selection/variation, and see ACTUAL new information and structures being crea...err, appearing, I'm not holding my breath.
Frampton:
ReplyDelete"Every time you put sticklebacks in freshwater they lose armor..."
Considering that the armoured phenotype is caused by a deletion in the promoter region of the gene (at least for the Pitx1 gene; Couard 2010 in Nature), this seems unlikely. You have a source for that?
Frampton: So STANDING genetic variation (arising by....evolution?) provides a molecular basis for rapid, parallel....evoluton?...(that's got a circular ring to it)
ReplyDeleteThere are two mechanisms at work, standing variation and independent mutation. Large morphological changes can occur due to simple genetic mutations, so there is a pool of variants available for natural selection to act on.
You seem to have the most difficulty with the idea of "random mutation." Mutation is largely random with respect to fitness, but phenotypic changes are hardly random. Mutations to regulatory genes can have profound effects on morphology.
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteI may have difficulty with "random mutation", you seem to have difficulty with the origin of new information. I think the bigger problem is we're talking circles around each other.
You're still pointing to changes that are already coded, and I'm still asking where the code came from. You are not addressing the issue of new information in any of your responses. Regulatory genes control how other genes are expressed, not how those genes arose no? That phenomenon still wouldn't appear to me to take the conversation beyond variation within species.
Frampton,
ReplyDeleteHere's one way that new genetic information arises by random mutation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication
Frampton,
ReplyDeleteSee also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy
as a mechanism for the formation of new species.
Charles,
ReplyDeleteIn the article I linked above, you will find a myriad of references at the end of it. Quite fascinating.
My comment invoked some hyperbole, but Sticklebacks appear to move back and forth between phenotypes quite a bit. Not dissimilar I would imagine to Galapogos finch beaks between droughts. Fluctuations about a mean.
Strong evidence for the power of natural selection (not that it really needed any at this point)within a species. Not great evidence for goo-to-you evolution however.
Aquatic version of the peppered moth.
Another great post by Cornelious "The Darwinian" Hunter.
ReplyDeleteLouis Savain, excellent take down of physics crack pottery. I read your blog occasionally. All I can say is that your voice should be heard by all.
Frampton: I may have difficulty with "random mutation", you seem to have difficulty with the origin of new information.
ReplyDeleteDavid: Here's one way that new genetic information arises by random mutation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication
Frampton, you were provided an example of how information can increase in a genome.
Frampton: Not dissimilar I would imagine to Galapogos finch beaks between droughts.
Galápagos Finches descended from a common, South American, ancestor.
Aquatic version of the peppered moth.
ReplyDeleteTrue. One wonders why creationists and their ilk make such a fuss about this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCornelius: "Problem is, those rapid changes are too rapid. They are a sign of a built-in adaptive capability rather than a lucky accident which evolutionists envision."
ReplyDeleteAre they really built-in? Is this an example of why Cornelius believes there is a "supernatural cause because of the science" as he noted on March 30th (read the comments)?
If so, it seems a rather tenuous link. And of course there may be a myriad of perfectly natural causes that we don't yet understand. Although Cornelius likes to think many of us must believe evolution because we want it to be true, that is far from the case. This may be an example of where there is much to be learned about evolutionary mechanisms that are not fully understood. But in the absence of any stronger evidence for a designer, it seems an enormous stretch to simply declare that this is some "in-built" adaption. Frankly that feels to me that Cornelius is falling into exactly the same metaphysical trap he is so quick to accuse so many of on this blog. It is entirely possible that what we understand about evolution is only in its infancy - but until Cornelius and crew can come up with some more solid tangible evidence for design other than "it looks designed so it is", my money is still on a wholly natural cause, without gods or supernatural causes involved.
Of course Cornelius also believes that the supernatural cause is the Christian God (again he said so on March 30). But curiously this God has nothing to say on the matter - despite being quite loquacious and detailed to the extreme on matters such as diet, husbandry, sexual behaviors - apparently we have to assume that the Designer wants all of this to remain a mystery. I guess talking about science is not His thing. Oh yes, I know, I can hear Cornelius's metaphysical gavel about to pounce - but it was he, not I, who believes that God is the Designer - so there is are indeed fair and reasonable issues to ponder.
Timcol62:
ReplyDeleteAnd of course there may be a myriad of perfectly natural causes that we don't yet understand.
Of course that is true. I suspect that that aphorism will be true forever.
So the question becomes, what do we understand today about the ability of natural causes to create the complex, information processing systems we observe in the cell?
And if we grant the existence of the information processing systems in the cell to begin with, what do we really know about the ability of natural causes to utilize those information processing systems to modify the morphology of the whole organism?
I submit that science cannot claim evolution is a reasonable explanation for the history of life until there is some reasonable understanding of how an organism can be "re-engineered" to become a morphologically different organism.
So my money is on the design inference until science can answer these fundamental albeit difficult questions.
Doublee: "So my money is on the design inference until science can answer these fundamental albeit difficult questions."
ReplyDeleteI think the difference is that there are already many plausible natural explanations. And science is trying very, very hard to answer these questions. From these many hypotheses can be made. Not all of these will work out of course. How is ID trying to answer these questions? What is it doing? As far as I can tell they are creating a lot of blogs and books but that's about it.
But on the design side, I have yet to see any equivalent hypotheses - indeed there seems a complete and utter reluctance to even propose any. The design inference, this giant leap from a perception that something looks designed to assuming a designer, is all there seems to be.
There is no overarching explanatory framework or even an attempt to speculate on one (which I think it is a legitimate activity, because such speculation can move us forward). Take a look at Uncommon Descent - when was the last time you saw anybody publish any results of an ID-based experiment? Sure, I know people like Stephen Meyers have suggested some kind of testing, but nobody seems particularly motivated to do them. I get the impression the ID community have already made up their mind what the result is - and, yes, it is quite difficult not to think that some kind of religious confirmation bias is not at work here (let me guess Doublee - would you happen to be a person of faith?).
Do you wonder then why so many are skeptical of ID? I find it ironic that the ID community complains about the perceived lack of "academic freedom" in science - yet, when people like myself try to ask legitimate questions about design (e.g., how, when, what, or even who) we are told in no uncertain terms that these are somehow "out of scope" - talk about limiting proper inquiry! Indeed some, such as Cornelius, pulls out the infamous "metaphysical" card.
Cornelius: "Problem is, those rapid changes are too rapid. They are a sign of a built-in adaptive capability rather than a lucky accident which evolutionists envision."
ReplyDeleteTimcol62: "Are they really built-in?"
What are you, a wise guy? Of course, they are built in. If the sticklebacks had to wait eons for random mutations and natural selection to do its magic trick, they would all be extinct.
Human beings do not have this ability for rapid adaptation because the designers gave us general intelligence that we can use to survive in harsh environments that we would normally perish in. It's very simple, really. You don't need to be a wise guy to get it.
Timcol62:
ReplyDelete[T]here are already many plausible natural explanations.
As you might expect, I disagree with your assertion that there are already many plausible natural explanations. And no doubt we will disagree aboput what constitutes a plausible explanation.
I have already suggested what I think must serve as the basis for a plausible explanation, and that is that the components of life must be treated as parts of an information processing system. How can it be treated in any other way except by considering what life actually is?
In fact that is where current ID research is active. William Dembski and Robert Marks have published a peer-reviewed article in the journal IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans.
Also, there is the Biologic Institute, which is "a non-profit research organization founded in 2005 for the purpose of developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology..."
Timcol62:
[W]hen people like myself try to ask legitimate questions about design (e.g., how, when, what, or even who)we are told in no uncertain terms that these are somehow "out of scope"...
This is the age old problem of what ID is and what can be inferred from the evidence. ID is an inference about causation; it is not an inference about mechanism. Unless science can find a signature in the cell, science can not tell us who the designer is. But you know all this already.
"What are you, a wise guy? Of course, they are built in. If the sticklebacks had to wait eons for random mutations and natural selection to do its magic trick, they would all be extinct."
ReplyDeleteDo you reflexively lie, or do you not understand the position?
Natural selection is pressure acting on allelic (genetic) diversity. The alleles don't have to arise spontaneously at the time of selection!
In the stickleback populations, it has been long understood there is in the marine (progenitor) population a low-frequency low-plating allele of Ectodysplasin.
"Widespread Parallel Evolution in Sticklebacks by Repeated Fixation of Ectodysplasin Alleles "
http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/307/5717/1928
When the ancestral fresh water population were trapped, and insects that grab the plating became the issue, selective pressure brought the rare allele to the forefront, and bam, no armor. Genes fixed. This has been experimentally reproduced.
No one argues the fish waited around armored for years in fresh water, and all had the same change in the same gene. (Though this paper reports a different change, for another stickleback).
Now the question is, did the low-frequency allele get there by natural processes, or did the designer foresee glaciation, etc., and put it there? Seems a wash between a well-understood natural process and a religious proposal backed by no hypothesis or data. I'll take the former.
Second, how do you separate design from theistic evolution? If the designer is allowing for,or dropping in random alleles to allow for plasticity in natural selection, aren't we back to theistic evolution? Totally explained by natural processes, but some guiding hand in the process that we don't really need to teach or consider?
So, if you want to move into the realm of science, is the design hypothesis that all low-frequency alleles found in nature are there for a purpose, i.e. designed? Are albinism, polydactyly, etc going to be useful at some point, or are they naturally occurring? If not, how do you distinguish designed from non-designed alleles?
By the way, do any of you reading this thread question why Cornelius has accepted, on face, that the sticklebacks in lake and their common ancestors share common descent? Evilutionist!!!
Maybe the freshwater sticklebacks were created in place, right?? (But seriously, the explanatory power of common descent is to great, and even you guys ASSUME it to be true, except when you remember to dispute it). In this case, it reads, sure they evolved, but they were designed to evolve. Not a compelling argument for expelling evolution from schools.
I wrote: "What are you, a wise guy? Of course, they are built in. If the sticklebacks had to wait eons for random mutations and natural selection to do its magic trick, they would all be extinct."
ReplyDeleteRobertC: "Do you reflexively lie, or do you not understand the position?"
I could ask you the same question but I don't have to. I know you're lying and I am about to prove it.
RobertC: "Natural selection is pressure acting on allelic (genetic) diversity. The alleles don't have to arise spontaneously at the time of selection!"
And you're saying with a straight face that allelic diversity is not built in? That's a laugh. It is obvious to everybody (excluding wise guys, of course) that there is a huge amount of genetic programming (code) that is dormant (not selected) in many species. This code is meant to surface rapidly when the right environmental conditions trigger them to do so. If this huge code diversity did not exist from the start and if the correct code was not programmed to surface rapidly in the right circumstances, those species would be extinct, period.
What is my point? My point is that you are reflexively lying, a common behavior in the evolutionist camp.
Savain:
ReplyDeleteThis code is meant to surface rapidly when the right environmental conditions trigger them to do so. If this huge code diversity did not exist from the start and if the correct code was not programmed to surface rapidly in the right circumstances, those species would be extinct, period.
"Meant?" By whom? Where is the evidence for the intervention of an agent?
My point is that you are reflexively lying, a common behavior in the evolutionist camp.
Prove it in the peer-reviewed literature, or courteously hold your peace.
Ok Louis, you've answered one question of mine:
ReplyDelete"Now the question is, did the low-frequency allele get there by natural processes, or did the designer foresee glaciation, etc., and put it there? Seems a wash between a well-understood natural process and a religious proposal backed by no hypothesis or data. I'll take the former."
Your reply is that they are designed by God. Ok, though interesting for a blog that rails against metaphysics and the insertion of religion into science. Nevertheless, lets work from there.
Now:
1) how do you separate design from theistic evolution? If the designer is allowing for, or dropping in random alleles to allow for plasticity in natural selection, aren't we back to theistic evolution? Totally explained by
natural processes, but some guiding hand in the process that we don't really need to teach or
consider? (Theologically, we could ask why the designer is behaving this way, but maybe that is a questions you need to ask yourself).
2) if you want to move into the realm of science, is the design hypothesis that all low-frequency alleles found in nature are there for a purpose, i.e. designed? Are albinism, polydactyly, etc going to be useful at some point, or are they naturally occurring? If not, how do you distinguish designed from non-designed alleles? I'd like specific alleles, and an explanatory filter, thanks. For example: is cystic fibrosis a designed disease?
3) Do you, on face, accept that the sticklebacks in lake and their common ancestors share common descent? Do you affirm common descent? You seem to accept extinction. Curious. If you were to teach sticklebacks in 6th grade, what would the curriculum be?
I wrote: "This code is meant to surface rapidly when the right environmental conditions trigger them to do so. If this huge code diversity did not exist from the start and if the correct code was not programmed to surface rapidly in the right circumstances, those species would be extinct, period."
ReplyDeleteDavid: ""Meant?" By whom? Where is the evidence for the intervention of an agent?"
I just explained it to you. It's not rocket science but, obviously, it went over your head. Why am I not surprised?
Louis Savain: "My point is that you are reflexively lying, a common behavior in the evolutionist camp."
David: "Prove it in the peer-reviewed literature, or courteously hold your peace."
I'll tell you what. You can kiss my @ss with your peer-reviewed literature. Why would I want to throw my pearls in a trough meant for swines? Peer review is synonymous with @ss review, in my opinion. It's a corrupt system. If there is one thing about me you can be sure of, it is this: I am not an @ss kisser like you people.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLouis-
ReplyDeleteSorry. When you said that the 'code was designed in' I assumed you were taking the Christian ID position. My bad. I have a nasty tendency to substitute God for designer. I'll pay attention to that in the future?
Or is it that you don't have the answers to the rest of the story?
I think Cornelius is tolerant of such language. I've been called much much worse, at much greater length.
Since Louis has departed, would anyone else like to answer my questions?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLouis,
ReplyDeleteIn that case, you might enjoy Uncommon Descent more. They usually suppress comments from anyone, who you know, has a point. Can't tolerate that, now, can we?
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/04/amazing-stickleback.html?showComment=1271538042138#c5700603509583624011
Links back to the original point I'd like to discuss with anyone willing to do so.
Louis:
ReplyDelete===
PS. to Cornelius. If you find my language objectionable for your blog, please let me know so that I will stop commenting here. This is the way I am. I am a rebel and I could not change my rebellious and irreverent nature even if wanted to. And I don't want to.
===
I encourage you to stick to clean language. Otherwise, you'll probably be ineffective. So yes, if you can't avoid it, then it would be better to not comment.
Robertc,
ReplyDelete"Second, how do you separate design from theistic evolution? If the designer is allowing for,or dropping in random alleles to allow for plasticity in natural selection, aren't we back to theistic evolution? Totally explained by natural processes, but some guiding hand in the process that we don't really need to teach or consider? >
To discover when God did the creating it is no more difficult than studying the existing fossil record. It is well known that there is almost a complete lack a intermediary forms - so universal common descent is falsified. That leaves design or theistic evolution of some sort. According to the fossil record life beings abundantly, rapidly, and with great complexity. There are repeated 'big bangs' of life after mass extinctions, or radiations if you like to obfusgate. So the scientific record supports the idea that God designs en mass at the optimum time with creatures that can adapt to their environment to a limited extent, but not morph into other distinct creatures. In the case of the stikle back I would say the it was designed with adaptive capabilites, not theistically evoluted.
.
Cornelius:
ReplyDelete"I encourage you to stick to clean language. Otherwise, you'll probably be ineffective. So yes, if you can't avoid it, then it would be better to not comment."
So be it. I respect your authority over your own blog. Let me part by saying that I don't think any type of dialog with evolutionists will be effective. Only some type of big event/discovery can make a difference. Good luck.
"To discover when God did the creating it is no more difficult than studying the existing fossil record. It is well known that there is almost a complete lack a intermediary forms "
ReplyDeleteSo oft repeated, and so false, that I'll direct you here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
And at any rate, its an ancient criticism. The conservation of biochemistry, endosymbiotic organelles, and phylogenetics is better evidence.
To quote Hubert Yockey, whom many of you are fond of quoting:
"The fundamental consideration in evolution is the genome, not the fossil record. Gaps in the fossil record do not matter. What matters is that there are no gaps in the continuity of the genome from the origin of life to the present. It is the continuity of the genome that shows the connectedness of all life—living, extinct and yet-to-be-evolved. That means there are no gaps in which species miraculously appear, as Intelligent Design falsely claims."
There is no reason why the mechanism of natural selection requires slow changes in species in every case.
ReplyDeleteTo understand why evolutionary theory doesn't necessarily posit slow, arduous change, you must understand two things: variation and selection.
Variation can be understood as follows: let's say you had a distribution of anything--for the sake of having a familiar example, let's say test scores. You could have a mean (average) score in the class of 80% correct, with scores ranging from 60 to 100, and a lot of values in the 60's and 90's. Or you could have a mean of 80% correct with most of the scores very close to 80%, and a range from 70-90. The first example would be a classroom with high variance in test scores, the second would be an example of a classroom with low variance in test scores (although they both have the same mean).
This is an important concept for understanding natural selection, because variance in genetic material is a source of evolutionary change, and differences in the amount of genetic variance can affect the speed of genetic adaptation.
You can imagine having populations with different amounts of genetic variance. To provide a simplified example, you might have a group of two groups of 20 fish of the same species: group A and group B. This variety of fish is known to vary in their genes for, say, fin color. But group A only has two different genes for fin color; say, one for light brown fins and one for dark brown fins. Group B, on the other hand, has gene combinations that sometimes result in blue, green, or hazel fins.
Then, imagine both groups of fish are put into separate hazel ponds and suddenly the hazel-finned fish have an advantage over fish of other colored-fins. The population with brown fins will likely retain brown fins, and perhaps need to rely on non-fin-color based strategies to avoid predators, which would push them to adapt in a different direction. But the population with access to genotypes for hazel fins will produce a next generation of almost all hazel-finned fish. This is genetic adaptation, a critical mechanism of evolution, that occurs quickly (for a better explanation than the one I just gave, see a book called Beak of the Finch).
It's also easy to see how the amount of genetic variance in a population matters. If you only have two fin colors to choose from, then a particular fin color would only confer advantage in two colors of water. If those fish never happen to encounter dark or light brown water, it is likely that their distribution of fin colors will remain the same for generations.
But if a population has many fin colors, then the chances are greater that a subset of the population could find themselves in a situation where their fin color confers an advantage, which would cause an adaptive shift in the genetic distribution of the population to take place rapidly if the advantage of the selected genetic variant is great enough.
Darwinian evolution from the 19th century required slow evolution, but we know a lot more about the mechanism of natural selection and genetic variation and sexual reproduction. This has caused most modern evolutionary theorists to understand that natural selection can produce important changes in a species within a couple of generations sometimes, especially when there is a lot of genetic variance and selection pressures are high.
Sarah:
ReplyDelete"There is no reason why the mechanism of natural selection requires slow changes in species in every case."
Is it also true that there is also no reason to ascribe rapid adaptation that intelligently responds to an environmental shift as a consequence of selection?
"You can imagine having populations with different amounts of genetic variance."
Why would this occur?
"Then, imagine both groups of fish are put into separate hazel ponds and suddenly the hazel-finned fish have an advantage over fish of other colored-fins."
We're not talking about cases of pre existing characters undergoing selection due to an environmetnal shift. We're talking about pre existing *mechanisms* that bring about adapatation due to an environmental shift.
"(for a better explanation than the one I just gave, see a book called Beak of the Finch)."
I have it right here, are you thinking of any particular passage? (I assume you are referring to Jonathan Weiner's book)
"It's also easy to see how the amount of genetic variance in a population matters."
So evolution creates genetic variance the appropriate genetic variance so that evolution can occur?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Is it also true that there is also no reason to ascribe rapid adaptation that intelligently responds to an environmental shift as a consequence of selection?"
ReplyDeleteIntelligently responds? Hmm. Could you quantify that intelligence? Is every population that fails to intelligently respond (goes extinct) then an argument against design?
As Sarah and I have pointed out, the stickleback phenomenon can be explained by natural selection acting on pre-existing alleles. The Eda allele is well researched (see above), and low plating alleles exist in marine populations. Selection in fresh water makes these alleles more abundant, to the point of fixation.
"We're not talking about cases of pre existing characters undergoing selection due to an environmetnal shift."
Why aren't we talking about that? Pre-existing allele undergoes selection following shift to fresh water. Pretty run-of-the-mill evolution*.
"So evolution creates genetic variance the appropriate genetic variance so that evolution can occur?"
There you go again, playing word games to make our logic look circular. Natural processes create genetic variance, which selection can act on. Are you disputing genetic variance-a quantifiable fact directly determinable by sequence data? Are all populations identical in phenotype?
Or that it comes about by natural processes?
-are all rare alleles designed?
-how do you distinguish designed ones from non-designed?
Or is it that you dispute selection can occur?
*Note: The whole statement is that p Pre-existing allele is selected for. Can be presented or taught without invoking that it got there because God put it there; or that it is there because there is no God. Neutral claim. Dare anyone to find an atheist claim in the stickleback primary literature. Methodological naturalism isn't atheistic, it is scientific. You can impose your own personal beliefs on it in church or home--whatever makes you happy--but why should we inject metaphysical claims like ID or theistic evolution into this good science when we teach or discuss it?
Sarah said:""You can imagine having populations with different amounts of genetic variance."
ReplyDeleteCornelius asks in response: "Why would this occur?"
Some possibilities include:
* Degree of purifying selection
* Time since a population size bottleneck
* Time since a selective sweep
* Population sizes
* Environmental variability
* Degree of difference between current environment and historical environmnent.
Cornelius then asks:"So evolution creates genetic variance the appropriate genetic variance so that evolution can occur?"
You wording suggests a teleological interpretation that evolution must somehow knowingly or serendipitously provide just the right amount of genetic variance so that evolution would be possible. That is nobody's position, to the best of my knowledge, nor is such an interpretation supported by any evidence I know of.
In fact, I am unsure why you would state that "evolution creates genetic variation" in the first place. Surely we can be more precise than this: mutation ultimately provides the variation upon which evolutionary processes can act.
Of course, too little genetic variation in a population and that population will be less likely to adapt to environmental change and will be more likely to become extinct over time; too much variation and the genetic load may be too high (i.e. insufficient ability to purge deleterious variants -> buildup of deleterious alleles -> mutational meltdown).
Hence, typical extant populations do exhibit limited ranges of genetic variation, and those limits can be reasonably expected to be shaped via purifying selection. This doesn't occur out of serendipity but out of necessity; other populations infrequently survive in the long term. In this way evolution may indeed shape the level of genetic variation which is observed and is available to other evolutionary processes, such as adaptation.
RobertC:
ReplyDeleteThese comments are a good example of how evolution distorts science.
===
As Sarah and I have pointed out, the stickleback phenomenon can be explained by natural selection acting on pre-existing alleles. The Eda allele is well researched (see above), and low plating alleles exist in marine populations. Selection in fresh water makes these alleles more abundant, to the point of fixation.
===
No, this is an incredible misrepresentation of the science. Those interested can see these, for starters:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/hopeful-monsters-endless-list-of.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/5963/302
===
"So evolution creates genetic variance the appropriate genetic variance so that evolution can occur?"
There you go again, playing word games to make our logic look circular.
===
No, I'm not the one playing word games. You are misrepresenting science and claiming a low probability theory is a fact. Regarding the stickleback example, you say the massive phenotype changes we observe to occur rapidly are merely resident all along, waiting for selection to act in different geographic locations so parallel evolution happens to occur. That is, of course, false. But going further with your logic, to the extent that some of the adaptation does arise from just the right level of genetic variance, I ask the *relevant* question above, and you claim foul and give this nonsense response:
===
Natural processes create genetic variance, which selection can act on.
===
IOW, "yes." Evolutionists are so deep into their mythology they don't even see it. Is there evidence for evolution? Sure, look at all these adaptations, happens all the time. And how do those adaptations occur? Oh they're brought about by all these different mechanisms: Genetic modifications, epigenetics, allele selection, etc. And those mechanisms, they just happen to be there? Yup. And where did they come from? Oh, natural processes created them. I see, so natural processes created the mechanisms that create evolution? Yeah, exactly. So evolution created evolution? Right. Evolution is a fact.
===
Are you disputing genetic variance-a quantifiable fact directly determinable by sequence data? Are all populations identical in phenotype?
===
No, I'm not disputing that.
abimer:
ReplyDelete===
Cornelius then asks:"So evolution creates genetic variance the appropriate genetic variance so that evolution can occur?"
You wording suggests a teleological interpretation that evolution must somehow knowingly or serendipitously provide just the right amount of genetic variance so that evolution would be possible. That is nobody's position, to the best of my knowledge, nor is such an interpretation supported by any evidence I know of.
===
Evolutionists don't usually recognize their own theory when it is repeated back to them sans the euphemisms. I am not suggesting a teleological interpretation. The correct answer is not "you're playing word games," or "this looks like a teleological interpretation." The only correct answer is "yes."
If evolution is true it must have created profoundly low probability structures and mechanisms by which evolution then occurred.
===
Of course, too little genetic variation in a population and that population will be less likely to adapt to environmental change and will be more likely to become extinct over time; too much variation and the genetic load may be too high (i.e. insufficient ability to purge deleterious variants -> buildup of deleterious alleles -> mutational meltdown).
===
Ahh, so fortunately evolution created a range of genetic variation. And not only that, but this range of variation encompassed a spectrum of functional designs that would just happen to come in handy. Oops, I forgot, that variation, itself, was selected for. Only the variations that encompassed designs that would be needed would survive.
===
Hence, typical extant populations do exhibit limited ranges of genetic variation, and those limits can be reasonably expected to be shaped via purifying selection. This doesn't occur out of serendipity but out of necessity; other populations infrequently survive in the long term. In this way evolution may indeed shape the level of genetic variation which is observed and is available to other evolutionary processes, such as adaptation.
===
Astonishing. Evolutionists really believe this stuff. Not out of serendipity but out of necessity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCornelius says:The only correct answer is "yes."
ReplyDeleteI have explained that the answer is yes only when more precise language is used and the teleological implication is removed. Saying "evolution creates evolution" is only marginally better than saying "stuff creates stuff". Some people might be interested in what the stuff happens to be.
Ahh, so fortunately evolution created a range of genetic variation.
The two purposes of my post were 1) to demonstrate that 'fortune' has nothing to do with it and 2) to suggest that it is not enough to simply say "evolution" when you mean a specific process within evolution.
Only the variations that encompassed designs that would be needed would survive.
Utter nonsense. Completely contrary to evolutionary theory. Again you are inventing teleology where none exists.
Astonishing. Evolutionists really believe this stuff. Not out of serendipity but out of necessity.
Why not respond to the whole paragraph instead of half a sentence? The point is simple: the populations that are more likely to survive over the long term are those where mutation and population size are sufficiently balanced such that some adaptation is possible without continually accumulating deleterious mutations i.e. they are able to maintain their relative level of fitness.
Cornelius Hunter: No, this is an incredible misrepresentation of the science. Those interested can see these, for starters:
ReplyDeletehttp://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/hopeful-monsters-endless-list-of.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/5963/302
That's funny. The whole Science paper is about evolution. Yes, 'large' morphological changes can occur due to simple genetic mutations in regulatory genes. Also, many traits can be linked, so a change in a single gene can cause multiple changes in morphology.
Of course, it depends on what you consider 'large', because as many IDers often point out, all the major animal body plans evolved during the Cambrian Explosion. Humans are just elaborated deuterostomes, tubes with appendages for stuffing food into one end.
Cornelius. I suppose it is down to whether people believe I have represented or misrepresented the science. I presented the classic work on sticklebacks. The most rapid change is the loss of armor, which is governed by the low-plating Eda allele . It exists in marine populations. Upon switch to freshwater, it is selected for. This has been experimentally reproduced.
ReplyDeletehttp://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/307/5717/1928
Abstract:
"Major phenotypic changes evolve in parallel in nature by molecular mechanisms that are largely unknown. Here, we use positional cloning methods to identify the major chromosome locus controlling armor plate patterning in wild threespine sticklebacks. Mapping, sequencing, and transgenic studies show that the Ectodysplasin (EDA) signaling pathway plays a key role in evolutionary change in natural populations and that parallel evolution of stickleback low-plated phenotypes at most freshwater locations around the world has occurred by repeated selection of Eda alleles derived from an ancestral low-plated haplotype that first appeared more than two million years ago. Members of this clade of low-plated alleles are present at low frequencies in marine fish, which suggests that standing genetic variation can provide a molecular basis for rapid, parallel evolution of dramatic phenotypic change in nature."
What have I misrepresented?
The other Science paper you point to looks at secondary change, pelvic loss. Evolution by loss of a regulatory locus, with positive selection.
Also, considering different not all sticklebacks have lost their pelvis, and different genes cause the pelvic loss in related fish, where is the design? Why does the design look so much like ordinary convergent evolution? What is the decision criteria for declaring design?
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/pelvis_has_left_building_sticklebacks_and_convergent_evolution
Last, I'll re-ask these questions you conveniently skipped:
1) Are you disputing genetic variance-a quantifiable fact directly determinable by sequence data? Are all populations identical in phenotype?
-Or that it comes about by natural processes?
-Or is it that you dispute selection can occur?
2) Are all rare alleles or mutational hotspots/chromosomal breakpoints designed? How do you tell the difference?
3) If these fish are intelligently designed to evolve (sounds funny, but I guess that is the argument), how is this a disproof of evolution? Couldn't we teach and research this without imposing the metaphysical 'design', since it looks like that design acts through normal means, and in the end, we're looking at natural processes?
4) Is every species not designed to evolve, conversely an argument against design? Or were they just designed to perish?
Zachriel and RobertC:
ReplyDelete===
That's funny. The whole Science paper is about evolution. Yes, 'large' morphological changes can occur due to simple genetic mutations in regulatory genes. Also, many traits can be linked, so a change in a single gene can cause multiple changes in morphology.
===
===
What have I misrepresented?
The other Science paper you point to looks at secondary change, pelvic loss. Evolution by loss of a regulatory locus, with positive selection.
===
These are remarkable examples of evolution's mockery of science. A population undergoes rapid, large-scale morphological change induced by environmental factors and it is described as selection, and the evolutionist wonders "What have I misrepresented?" Evolutionists are not scientists in the sense of following empirical observations.
===
Last, I'll re-ask these questions you conveniently skipped:
===
When you begin by making a mockery of science you risk not having your questions answered. To evolutionists this may sound harsh, or like hyperbole--it is not meant to be.
===
1) Are you disputing genetic variance-a quantifiable fact directly determinable by sequence data? Are all populations identical in phenotype?
===
No and no. It is always striking how evolutionists make stuff up and then act as though the skeptic is the one not following the data.
===
-Or that it comes about by natural processes?
===
Yes, I dispute your mandate that it must come about by natural processes, regardless of the evidence. I don't know how adaptation mechanisms arose, so unlike evolutionists I don't decide what the right answer is up front.
===
-Or is it that you dispute selection can occur?
===
Adaptation induced by environmental factors is not selection. Of course selection "can occur," but the fact that it can occur does nothing to help your non scientific claims here.
===
2) Are all rare alleles or mutational hotspots/chromosomal breakpoints designed? How do you tell the difference?
===
I don't know.
===
3) If these fish are intelligently designed to evolve (sounds funny, but I guess that is the argument),
===
The argument is that evolution is a religious theory that is in conflict with the scientific evidence.
===
how is this a disproof of evolution?
===
It isn't. None of the many falsified predictions disprove evolution. Evolution is a scientifically-ridiculous, religious theory. It resists falsification inspite of the science.
===
Couldn't we teach and research this without imposing the metaphysical 'design', since it looks like that design acts through normal means, and in the end, we're looking at natural processes?
===
Of course, that's a great idea, but evolutionists would never stand for it.
===
4) Is every species not designed to evolve, conversely an argument against design? Or were they just designed to perish?
===
I don't know.
Dr. Hunter,
ReplyDeleteNothing in here is a defense for anything other than Theistic Evolution.
You accept the data, genetic variation, that adaptation (selection) can occur, present no design hypotheses, and answer "I don't know to all inquiries about design.
Robert: "Couldn't we teach and research this without imposing the metaphysical 'design', since it looks like that design acts through normal means, and in the end, we're looking at natural processes?
===
Hunter: Of course, that's a great idea, but evolutionists would never stand for it."
Deal. I'll describe the data of evolution, and the prevailing theory. I do not impose evolution as a defense of atheism, theistic evolution or design in the classroom or literature.*
Now if you would agree to the same, we'd be set. Unfortunately, we all know ID is a means to an end-inclusion of religion in the classroom.
*Privately, I will feel/state whatever I want.