Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne

[lewisnotmiller]

Actually, I have a pretty good understanding of evolution and the word species as well. I'm just not so locked in as it seems many people are with regard to the meaning of the word. Species is indeed more precise a word than the word kind..I agree. But I lost my favor to the word here on this forum talking to atheist evolutionists. It happened when I was presented with a question that went something like this. How can I believe in the God of the Bible when those who wrote the bible didn't even know that a bat was not a bird. I tried to bring this up earlier in this thread, but no one seemed to take interest. When the Bible was written, a bat was a kind of bird. So I formed some resentment to the word, and greater resentment to atheists for that reason. It was a most dishonest and idiotic question to ask. And left me with the impression that I'm sick and tired of talking to these idiots.
I have enjoyed our conversation, and as a result of it I have at least some hope that at least some atheists are decent people.

Meh. We come in all flavours. I try to be a decent person, although you and I may have different concepts of what that means, of course. We've spoken before once or twice on RF. Strikes me that, whilst we are unlikely to ever really agree on much, we've managed to have a coherent conversation and at least understand each other, which I think is a positive thing.

In terms of dishonest questions from atheists...it happens. It occurs from any broad group, and atheists are a very broad group, somewhat akin to herding chickens. But leave some room for questions from ignorance, if you will. Not suggesting the questions you're referring to were or weren't, since I would have no clue, but people commonly make assumptions about others, and 'stupid' questions can simply be representative of these assumptions, rather than any inherent discourtesy, dishonesty, etc.

To me the word species represents a group of individuals having as you say, a "fuzzy range" of similar characteristics and are capable of producing viable offspring.

Similar to my take. Sorry for the pestering on it, but it was more around whether or not I would bring 'evidence' of speciesization to the thread, in terms of controlled, observable scientific experiments. There have been some done which show evidence of fly population dividing into 2 groups for breeding purposes based on environmental considerations/feeding, but these would remain of the same species based on your definition (and my working definition too, to be clear). So apart from bacterial experiments, which don't breed at all in a traditional sense, I am not aware of any observable experiments conducted.

(Obviously time is a major issue in even designing an experiment, but whilst an absence of directly observable science experiments doesn't count as a negative to my mind, I can hardly point to is as a positive!!)

I had a vague recollection of a naturally divided bird population which ended up unable to breed amongst themselves (ie. divided into 2) but cannot find it with some quick google-fu, so I'm going to assume my memory is mistaken.

There are some pretty interesting prediction and confirmation experiments around DNA markers which have been performed, but unless you tell me you're interested, I won't bore you with those...lol

 

[metis]

I know this because there is no such thing as magic. And I know that everything that has occurred has occurred naturally.
Computers exist naturally because it comes naturally for human beings to create them. God existed before the universe did. So His existence is even more natural than the existence of entire universe, and everything in it.

First of all, if everything had to be supposedly created, then why not God? How could you or anyone else actually know that God is eternal? Are you eternal whereas you can tell? What objective evidence of any type can you provide us?

And exactly how is it that you supposedly know that God had anything to do with creating our universe? Were you there? How do you know it wasn't "Gods" instead? How do you know that all doesn't go back to infinity, which is even older than I am.

Finally, I don't have a problem with what you may believe as long as you recognize that this is what it is-- belief. But beliefs are not necessarily facts, so we should always temper our beliefs with some "I don't know".

 

[Sapiens]

Obviously a significant design improvement will help that design outlive an inferior one, the Ford Mustang outlived the Ford Pinto because it was better suited to survive also.

The question remains:

How does a random corruption in the design plans of anything- just happen to produce a significantly superior design?

It is not a random corruption in the design plan that produces anything but variation, it is just a substitution, at the base pair level. It is natural selection that produces a significantly superior design by filtering out the substitutions that produce less fit organisms and thus assuring that more fit organisms have more offspring.

Your car analogy is bad from the get go, but let me try to use it to illustrate: Lets assume that every possible option that was available from a Ford dealer from 1950 to 2000 is the suite of possible mutations. Each vehicle (species) starts off as the base model. Randomly, options are added, (mutations) so you get a two wheel drive, long bed Thunderbird and a Ford GT with 190R13 tires and other such combinations that would be selected against by nature (in this case the driver/owner). Pintos with seven liter engines, F450 trucks with 1.7 liter 4 bangers, there are so, so many mismatches possible.

But ... most any Mustang that gets a 289, 305, 351 or 427 will work well (although with the 427 the torque will, in time, twist the frame and make it a fast car, but one that dies young, it's a double edged sword). Now, lets assume that reproduction is on the basis of completing circuits in one of the first three slots at Sears Point. 30 more copies are put in the pool for a first, 20 for a second and 10 for a third, but all have some chance of a mutation (a random substitution from the options list, could be different paint, different interior, different wheels and tires, different engine and.or transmission, etc.), All the new cars are put on the track and after 5 laps the yellow flag goes out and all but the leading 12 are ordered off the track, 5 more laps are run and then there's another round of reproduction. If the original cars keep up this process eventually the Mustangs with 427s will stop winning because of their increasingly poor handling. Do the same process on a different track, say Nurenburgring and you'll likely "evolve" through selection, a totally different vehicle. Do this at a hill climb or off road rally or on the basis of carrying a 1500 lb load, and the results will shift again.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is not a random corruption in the design plan that produces anything but variation, it is just a substitution, at the base pair level. It is natural selection that produces a significantly superior design by filtering out the substitutions that produce less fit organisms and thus assuring that more fit organisms have more offspring.

There's your trouble, if significant design improvements cannot be produced by mere random corruption to any practical degree, which we both agree on, then natural selection has no significant improvements to select from. Unless it is selecting insignificant improvements with the conscious future aspiration of one day assembling a significantly superior design from them?

If any individual corruption is not a significant improvement, then that mutation will not give that individual any significant advantage, it will not live significantly longer, or reproduce significantly more, or hence significantly alter the gene pool will it?

No advantageous evolution has taken place with this insignificant mutation. So when does it take place? As far as we can tell, very suddenly, often instantaneously if we take the fossil record at face value. What drives these drastic metamorphoses if individual random mutation is ruled out?

What drives atoms to create great fusion reactors, producing elements necessary for life? Not random chance as once thought, but specific instructions, blueprints underlying the superficial observations of their apparently unguided behavior

By the auto analogy, given random design changes alone, we would produce a new model year line of vehicles that have become inferior to their predecessors, by the fact that random changes are overwhelmingly more likely to produce deleterious results. Even given a list of perfectly functional intelligently designed options to choose from, we get mostly mismatches as you note. But in reality, random mutation has no particular motivation to even offer potentially superior designs as ID does. Ford Pinto and Chevy Volt not withstanding of course! The fallacy here is that 'survival of the fittest' somehow necessitates 'survival of the fitter'. without ID, there is no such direction for change to follow.

As an aside, what would be your ideal muscle car?

 

[outhouse]

There's your trouble, if significant design improvements cannot be produced by mere random corruption to any practical degree, which we both agree on, then natural selection has no significant improvements to select from. Unless it is selecting insignificant improvements with the conscious future aspiration of one day assembling a significantly superior design from them?

If any individual corruption is not a significant improvement, then that mutation will not give that individual any significant advantage, it will not live significantly longer, or reproduce significantly more, or hence significantly alter the gene pool will it?

No advantageous evolution has taken place with this insignificant mutation. So when does it take place? As far as we can tell, very suddenly, often instantaneously if we take the fossil record at face value. What drives these drastic metamorphoses if individual random mutation is ruled out?

What drives atoms to create great fusion reactors, producing elements necessary for life? Not random chance as once thought, but specific instructions, blueprints underlying the superficial observations of their apparently unguided behavior

By the auto analogy, given random design changes alone, we would produce a new model year line of vehicles that have become inferior to their predecessors, by the fact that random changes are overwhelmingly more likely to produce deleterious results. Even given a list of perfectly functional intelligently designed options to choose from, we get mostly mismatches as you note. But in reality, random mutation has no particular motivation to even offer potentially superior designs as ID does. Ford Pinto and Chevy Volt not withstanding of course! The fallacy here is that 'survival of the fittest' somehow necessitates 'survival of the fitter'. without ID, there is no such direction for change to follow.

As an aside, what would be your ideal muscle car?

What a bunch of word salad, that amounts to rhetoric and nothing more.



You could have saved us the read and just said, I refuse education and knowledge. Your not a dancer, you have no skills at avoidng science.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's your trouble, if significant design improvements cannot be produced by mere random corruption to any practical degree, which we both agree on, then natural selection has no significant improvements to select from. Unless it is selecting insignificant improvements with the conscious future aspiration of one day assembling a significantly superior design from them?

If any individual corruption is not a significant improvement, then that mutation will not give that individual any significant advantage, it will not live significantly longer, or reproduce significantly more, or hence significantly alter the gene pool will it?

No advantageous evolution has taken place with this insignificant mutation. So when does it take place? As far as we can tell, very suddenly, often instantaneously if we take the fossil record at face value. What drives these drastic metamorphoses if individual random mutation is ruled out?

What drives atoms to create great fusion reactors, producing elements necessary for life? Not random chance as once thought, but specific instructions, blueprints underlying the superficial observations of their apparently unguided behavior

By the auto analogy, given random design changes alone, we would produce a new model year line of vehicles that have become inferior to their predecessors, by the fact that random changes are overwhelmingly more likely to produce deleterious results. Even given a list of perfectly functional intelligently designed options to choose from, we get mostly mismatches as you note. But in reality, random mutation has no particular motivation to even offer potentially superior designs as ID does. Ford Pinto and Chevy Volt not withstanding of course! The fallacy here is that 'survival of the fittest' somehow necessitates 'survival of the fitter'. without ID, there is no such direction for change to follow.

As an aside, what would be your ideal muscle car?

This is to misunderstand how a stochastic process (eg, evolution) works.
Ref...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process

In probability theory, a stochastic (/stoʊˈkæstɪk/) process, or often random process, is a collection of random variables, representing the evolution of some system of random values over time. This is the probabilistic counterpart to a deterministic process (or deterministic system). Instead of describing a process which can only evolve in one way (as in the case, for example, of solutions of an ordinary differential equation), in a stochastic or random process there is some indeterminacy: even if the initial condition (or starting point) is known, there are several (often infinitely many) directions in which the process may evolve.

Input (mutation) is random, but because there's a non-directed fitness function (natural selection), the output becomes less random.
This leads to emergent properties, eg, evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is to misunderstand how a stochastic process (eg, evolution) works.
Ref...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process

Input (mutation) is random, but because there's a non-directed fitness function (natural selection), the output becomes less random.
This leads to emergent properties, eg, evolution.

As above- nobody debates that natural selection will favor the Mustang over the Pinto, or any biological individual with any significantly superior design improvement.

Yes, making random changes to a car's design will provide variation, it will give natural selection a choice, a choice of the least screwed up version of it's predecessor, not a better car!

 

[Revoltingest]

As above- nobody debates that natural selection will favor the Mustang over the Pinto, or any biological individual with any significantly superior design improvement.
Yes, making random changes to a car's design will provide variation, it will give natural selection a choice, a choice of the least screwed up version of it's predecessor, not a better car!

Actually, making random changes to a design (eg, antenna, circuit) & then applying a fitness function will make a better product.
Outside of the engineering world, few people know how important evolution is in biomimicry applications.
Genetic algorithms....not just for optimization anymore!

 

[SkepticThinker]

The analogy stinks. Let it go.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Actually, making random changes to a design (eg, antenna, circuit) & then applying a fitness function will make a better product.
Outside of the engineering world, few people know how important evolution is in biomimicry applications.
Genetic algorithms....not just for optimization anymore!

Yes I use it myself in software, in one example to determine the most efficient way to drive a car with specific parameters around any specific test track.

basically make small random alterations and select for the fastest time,

Which it does quite well, I'm still waiting for it to spontaneously develop it's own consciousness and introduce itself though!

because the algorithm hones efficiency, just like the antenna, you get a very efficient antenna, nothing more and nothing less

i.e. the specific output is determined by the fitness function.

And we can (I have) simulated this with reproducers also, you get the most efficient simple bare bones replicator-

in a word Entropy: the tendency of random action towards decay, decline, degradation- limited only instructions specifically determining otherwise

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes I use it myself in software, in one example to determine the most efficient way to drive a car with specific parameters around any specific test track.
basically make small random alterations and select for the fastest time,
Which it does quite well, I'm still waiting for it to spontaneously develop it's own consciousness and introduce itself thought!
because the algorithm hones efficiency, just like the antenna, you get a very efficient antenna, nothing more and nothing less
i.e. the specific output is determined by the fitness function.
And we can (I have) simulated this with reproducers also, you get the most efficient simple bare bones replicator-
in a word Entropy: the tendency of random action towards decay, decline, degradation- limited only instructions specifically determining otherwise

Entropy does not work that way, & doesn't even apply to an open system.
(Why does no one study thermodynamics?)
And given time, it could very well be that evolutionary algorithmic design is the tool which results in conscious machines.
Bio evolution had billions of years of trials with gazillions of organisms.
The biomimicry version has existed in less than the blink of an eye.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Entropy does not work that way, & doesn't even apply to an open system.
(Why does no one study thermodynamics?)

en·tro·py

2.

synonyms: deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse;More
Entropy is why classical physics failed, simple laws = simple results, the universe required far more specific instructions in the universal constants to construct great fusion reactors to manufacture elements specific to life.

Not everything is possible just because there is lots of it and billion of years for it to get bored and decide to create something interesting!

And classical physics was far more directly testable, observable, far less speculative than evolution is today

And given time, it could very well be that evolutionary algorithmic design is the tool which results in conscious machines.
Bio evolution had billions of years of trials with gazillions of organisms.
The biomimicry version has existed in less than the blink of an eye.

I think you may well be right, in which case we will have a demonstrated method, a proof of principle by which sentient life can be created through intelligent design

But I will wager that demonstrating the same happening by sheer fluke, will still be an elusive holy grail of atheism

 

[outhouse]

But I will wager that demonstrating the same happening by sheer fluke, will still be an elusive holy grail of atheism

The facts of evolution

have nothing to do with a lack of belief in mythology



Your just desperate and grasping at straws while getting hammered with every word you reply.


I wish you could see how obvious you are.

 

[Revoltingest]

en·tro·py
2.
synonyms: deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse;More
Entropy is why classical physics failed, simple laws = simple results, the universe required far more specific instructions in the universal constants to construct great fusion reactors to manufacture elements specific to life.

The synonyms listed are lay interpretations, & not applicable to rigorous technical analysis.
Classical physics works splendidly in analyzing system response, eg, open stochastic system of evolution.
And remember that entropy only imposes the limitations you seek in a closed system.
Just as the creationist invocation of entropy from the energy perspective fails because our
environment continually receives energy (decreasing entropy in an open system), the
information perspective also fails to prohibit evolution because new info is added by mutations.

Not everything is possible just because there is lots of it and billion of years for it to get bored and decide to create something interesting!

This statement is a truism which doesn't prohibit evolution.

And classical physics was far more directly testable, observable, far less speculative than evolution is today

That has become untrue, eg, insect evolution.

I think you may well be right, in which case we will have a demonstrated method, a proof of principle by which sentient life can be created through intelligent design
But I will wager that demonstrating the same happening by sheer fluke, will still be an elusive holy grail of atheism

"Fluke" is to miss how evolutionary algorithms work.
The system response of evolution is inexorable.
Whether it is how sentient machines arise is a separate issue.
But I expect it will play a role because the problem might be too complex
to attack by direct methods, ie, fully defining & designing consciousness.

 

[Sapiens]

Entropy, in point fact, drives evolution: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The synonyms listed are lay interpretations, & not applicable to rigorous technical analysis.
Classical physics works splendidly in analyzing system response, eg, open stochastic system of evolution.
And remember that entropy only imposes the limitations you seek in a closed system.
Just as the creationist invocation of entropy from the energy perspective fails because our
environment continually receives energy (decreasing entropy in an open system), the
information perspective also fails to prohibit evolution because new info is added by mutations.

This statement is a truism which doesn't prohibit evolution.

That has become untrue, eg, insect evolution.

"Fluke" is to miss how evolutionary algorithms work.
The system response of evolution is inexorable.
Whether it is how sentient machines arise is a separate issue.
But I expect it will play a role because the problem might be too complex
to attack by direct methods, ie, fully defining & designing consciousness.

When orbits decay, organic matter decomposes, DNA degrades, chemical bonds break down, these are all forms of entropy that are absolutely applicable to rigorous technical analysis.

And In stark contrast, the philosophical speculation that a single celled molecule morphed into a man through countless lucky flukes, is anything but open to rigorous analysis of any kind.

'lucky fluke' is the engine, the core, the foundation of evolution, without it natural selection has no superior designs to choose from.

One can technically posit that we are just witness to an extraordinary sequence of staggeringly improbable luck- and S**t happens, but to ignore the element of fluke is to avoid the whole picture.


Even our friend Dawkins acknowledges this

it may be that the origin of life is not the only major gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck... the origin of the eucaryotic cell (or kind of cell with a nucleolus and various other complicated features such as mitochondria, which are not present in bacteria) was an even more momentous, difficult and statistically improbable step than the origin of life

Anyway- happy thanksgiving to all! I appreciate the civil debate and good humor as always

 

[Revoltingest]

When orbits decay, organic matter decomposes, DNA degrades, chemical bonds break down, these are all forms of entropy that are absolutely applicable to rigorous technical analysis.

Do you think being an open system doesn't negate this?

And In stark contrast, the philosophical speculation that a single celled molecule morphed into a man through countless lucky flukes, is anything but open to rigorous analysis of any kind.
'lucky fluke' is the engine, the core, the foundation of evolution, without it natural selection has no superior designs to choose from.

Do you disagree that the fitness function (natural selection) doesn't affect the probability?

One can technically posit that we are just witness to an extraordinary sequence of staggeringly improbable luck- and S**t happens, but to ignore the element of fluke is to avoid the whole picture.
Even our friend Dawkins acknowledges this

I don't know Dawkins opinion on this.
Could you relate what you're relying upon?

it may be that the origin of life is not the only major gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck... the origin of the eucaryotic cell (or kind of cell with a nucleolus and various other complicated features such as mitochondria, which are not present in bacteria) was an even more momentous, difficult and statistically improbable step than the origin of life
Anyway- happy thanksgiving to all! I appreciate the civil debate and good humor as always

Have some......

 

[dust1n]

Entropy, in point fact, drives evolution: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

Ah, well that's a bit strong, as it hasn't been, like, rigorously confirmed yet. But entropy, in fact, does not negate or prohibit evolution.

 

[Aset's Flames]

As parents we provide for our children everything they need, but we do not solve every problem for them, we understand the greater gift of learning, appreciation, self determination, as better for us and them

Ultimately we want them to be grateful, to share mutual love, but this cannot be forced, love cannot be mandated or it does not exist. right? So they must be free to choose otherwise and reject that love, forever even.

Does this make parents extremely evil?

Again though- I'm sure there's another thread we can take this up on!

However a parent cannot solve every problem for their children and the reason we do not solve every problem we can for them is becuase on day they will face challenges and need the experience of doing such things themselves.

I most certainly would not make children go through the kind of horrors that children have had to suffer for generations.

 

[ArtieE]

As above- nobody debates that natural selection will favor the Mustang over the Pinto, or any biological individual with any significantly superior design improvement.

Yes, making random changes to a car's design will provide variation, it will give natural selection a choice, a choice of the least screwed up version of it's predecessor, not a better car!

Sickle-cell anemia is caused by a mutation in the haemoglobin gene. In certain parts of Africa it is detrimental and decreases survival rates, in other malaria infested parts it INCREASES survival rates because it protects from malaria. Imagine that. A mutation that leads to better chances of survival in certain areas... a random change to a car's design making it a better car for that particular area.