Most high school biology teachers don’t endorse evolution

[Red Panda]

While selective breeding often involves bringing out certain traits in a species, just as evolution does, it isn't really evolution. Breeding involves selecting specific traits before mating, in anticipation that the resulting trait will be more beneficial, either to the breeder or to the organism. Evolution does not. Evolution is more of a crap shoot, wherein the resulting change may or may not be beneficial. Moreover, unlike evolution, selective breeding almost never results in a new species. Selective breeding is a purposeful enterprise. Evolution is not.

No. evolution is not a crap shoot. It is a very methodical and gradual process. You have four groups of the same species of birds. One group goes off and starts feeding on the vegetation by the shore. Another group goes off and starts feeding on the insects in the ground. The third eats fruit from the trees. The fourth eats berries from the shrubs. The birds with the slightly better beak for the type of food they are eating will thrive better than those with a slightly worse beak. And those that thrive will mate and have offspring. Over time, the beak will change until it becomes specified for that particular food. There will come a point in time when the group that went down to the shore to eat vegetation will have a beak which is completely unsuited to eating fruit or berries or insects. At that point in time, you have four new species of birds. It does NOT happen all at one time. There is NO jump from one species to another. It is a gradual change.

Genes mutate all the time. It is not the mutation of genes which directly causes the formation of a new species, it is the process of evolution or natural selection which does it.

Selective breeding is the same PROCESS only done artificially not naturally. The breeder says I want this characteristic in the offspring. The environmental conditions determine that a longer beak is better for getting insects than the shorter one. It is the same process.

 

[Skwim]

No. evolution is not a crap shoot. It is a very methodical and gradual process.

Gradual, yes. Very methodical, no; although, I suppose in the very broadest sense of the word one could say there's a method of sorts involved.

Selective breeding is the same PROCESS only done artificially not naturally.

While both involve genetic recombinations, selective breeding is simply not the same process as natural selection. As I said, selective breeding is a purposeful enterprise. Evolution is not. They're as different as placing a pair of dice 5 side up and throwing the pair until both are 5-side up---the "crap shoot." As someone with a degree in zoology I would think you'd understand this. Ask yourself, "Do I ever hear anyone refer to breeding as evolution: 'I'm going to evolve these two dogs'? Or, 'Modern humans were bred from early primates'? Of course you don't because each refers to a different process.

 

[Me Myself]

Gradual, yes. Very methodical, no; although, I suppose in the very broadest sense of the word one could say there's a method of sorts involved.

While both involve genetic recombinations, selective breeding is simply not the same process as natural selection. As I said, selective breeding is a purposeful enterprise. Evolution is not. They're as different as placing a pair of dice 5 side up and throwing the pair until both are 5-side up---the "crap shoot." As someone with a degree in zoology I would think you'd understand this. Ask yourself, "Do I ever hear anyone refer to breeding as evolution: 'I'm going to evolve these two dogs'? Or, 'Modern humans were bred from early primates'? Of course you don't because each refers to a different process.

Technically speaking, breeding selectively is still natural selection. We are nature, and we are selecting .

The traits that the enviroment (in the case of purposeful selective breeding, the breeders would be the most influencial part of the enviroment) favors are the ones being passed on.

It is the same. The difference between evolution and what dog breeders do is the difference between birds and ostriches : one is a specific form of the other of which there are many other specific forms.

 

[Skwim]

Technically speaking, breeding selectively is still natural selection. We are nature, and we are selecting .

Just as shooting someone is. We are nature and we are responding according to our nature.

It is the same. The difference between evolution and what dog breeders do is the difference between birds and ostriches : one is a specific form of the other of which there are many other specific forms.

Pleeeease. :cover: give me credit for at least a little intelligence.

 

[Red Panda]

Pleeeease. :cover: give me credit for at least a little intelligence.

:biglaugh:

 

[Ouroboros]

Gradual, yes. Very methodical, no; although, I suppose in the very broadest sense of the word one could say there's a method of sorts involved.

I rather say it's an algorithm. Process works too. "Method" and "methodical" sounds like there's someone involved. People are methodical--thinking out what to do next. Method is something a person uses to figure out things. And so on. Algorithms can be automatic, for instance how the CPU in a calculator "figures" out the square root of a number (through a set process or algorithm). That's just my view, and I'm sure people disagree with me.

While both involve genetic recombinations, selective breeding is simply not the same process as natural selection. As I said, selective breeding is a purposeful enterprise. Evolution is not. They're as different as placing a pair of dice 5 side up and throwing the pair until both are 5-side up---the "crap shoot." As someone with a degree in zoology I would think you'd understand this. Ask yourself, "Do I ever hear anyone refer to breeding as evolution: 'I'm going to evolve these two dogs'? Or, 'Modern humans were bred from early primates'? Of course you don't because each refers to a different process.

It's true, but the parts that are not different in those two processes shows that mutation and selection works. Evolution is "mutation, reproduction, natural selection" while breeding is "mutation, reproduction, human selection." No one goes in a intentionally changes the DNA, but the DNA mutates on its own, just like in nature. Just like it works in nature, it works for breeding, and it shows that the algoritm works in either case.

There's been many laboratory experiments done when bacteria, fruit flies, and such have been let to multiply on its own and the only artificial stimulus have been through changing the environment, not by handpicking a selection. It's been proven that bacteria evolve and will grow resistance to antibiotics, without any influence other than introducing the antibiotics in small amounts over time. So we do know for sure that the algoritm works. It also have been observed in plants and animals in nature. I have to look it up, but there's a documented case of lizards evolving over just 40 years to improve their ability for changed food supply.

 

[Red Panda]

I rather say it's an algorithm. Process works too. "Method" and "methodical" sounds like there's someone involved. People are methodical--thinking out what to do next. Method is something a person uses to figure out things. And so on. Algorithms can be automatic, for instance how the CPU in a calculator "figures" out the square root of a number (through a set process or algorithm). That's just my view, and I'm sure people disagree with me.

Process, algorithm, method, mechanism, manner, system, scheme, and so on. It doesn't matter which word is used. They all indicate that natural selection is neither random nor chaotic.

It's true, but the parts that are not different in those two processes shows that mutation and selection works. Evolution is "mutation, reproduction, natural selection" while breeding is "mutation, reproduction, human selection." No one goes in a intentionally changes the DNA, but the DNA mutates on its own, just like in nature. Just like it works in nature, it works for breeding, and it shows that the algoritm works in either case.

There's been many laboratory experiments done when bacteria, fruit flies, and such have been let to multiply on its own and the only artificial stimulus have been through changing the environment, not by handpicking a selection. It's been proven that bacteria evolve and will grow resistance to antibiotics, without any influence other than introducing the antibiotics in small amounts over time. So we do know for sure that the algoritm works. It also have been observed in plants and animals in nature. I have to look it up, but there's a documented case of lizards evolving over just 40 years to improve their ability for changed food supply.

Thanks for bringing in the examples from nature. I use the breeding example because most people can see and understand the process as they are familiar with breeding and how it works. I forgot that there are people who are going to jump all over me and use the small inconsequential difference to negate my whole point.

 

[Ouroboros]

Process, algorithm, method, mechanism, manner, system, scheme, and so on. It doesn't matter which word is used. They all indicate that natural selection is neither random nor chaotic.

The difference is in how people perceive certain words, not necessarily how you understand them. I know what you mean, but sometimes the choice of words can make a world of difference.

 

[Red Panda]

The difference is in how people perceive certain words, not necessarily how you understand them. I know what you mean, but sometimes the choice of words can make a world of difference.

Yes. That's what I was trying to say.

Process is the word that was used in school. The "process of evolution" and the "theory of evolution" was used to denote the difference. Many people try to negate the theory of evolution by negating the process of evolution and it can't be done, because the two are different.

 

[Ouroboros]

Process is the word that was used in school. The "process of evolution" and the "theory of evolution" was used to denote the difference. Many people try to negate the theory of evolution by negating the process of evolution and it can't be done, because the two are different.

Good point. I never thought of that distinction myself until you mentioned that in the earlier post.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Who knows at this point. I had to leave my lab because I couldn't afford to live where I did and had to move in with family, and at the moment my "field' is "research consultant" which means that I try to help a company that develops products for researchers who are in everything from applied physics and engineering to the social & behavioral sciences. But I would like to think of my field as cognitive neuropsychology, because that's what I did before I had to move, and that is what I hope to return to in some form or another. Because within the cognitive sciences are theoretical physicists along with philosophers, not to mention engineers & computer scientists, psychologists, and linguists. HCI is fundamentally tied to the cognitive sciences, as is neuroimaging, linguistics, and evolutionary psychology. So I need not necessarily go back to any particular grad program, yet the one I had has certain advantages and I lived there for most of my life.

Interesting

How would you define "fitness" (in terms of evolution, of course)?

Layman's terms? Its to the degree in which an organism can thrive in order to procreate and pass on its genetic lineage as well as having its offspring survive. I add the last part in on because of the research in the evolution of morality. Morality does nothing specifically to help the single organism survive but things like family connections and love for their children/mate allow for them to have more successful offspring that will hopefully do the same.

But if an organism has a genetic mutation which occurs at random that in some way helps it in its ability to produce more offspring that live in its current habitat.

It is a mistake to think fitness simply means stronger, faster ect. Its also relative to its habitat, predators, prey, competition ect. Being able to consume less energy and do more is a "fitness" while being camouflaged is a fitness. Its specific genetic advantages that can put you up one over your competitors to live and produce more offspring. Eventually if that gene or allele is truly superior or game changing it will slowly be passed on to all living forms (or at least the vast majority) of a single isolated population. These changes over vast vast vast vast periods of time is what evolution is.

Though then there are other factors later on as things get more complex and we look at things from broad to specific. Epigentics is a very interesting field that is coming up somewhat recently that I don't claim to know that much about. But it could be a game changer in how we look at evolution. But the general idea though loops back to a very simple concept of "change over time".

It's common knowledge that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the big factor in global warming. The fundamental reason why (feedback mechanisms from various atmospheric, oceanic, and even surface systems) is not. Most people think that the increase in GHGs increases the temperature. Which is true, but if that's all it was we wouldn't be worried. The ways in which these increases change other things like irradiative absorption, cloud coverage and type of cloud coverage, and a great deal more are what matters.

Evolution is similar. It's very easy to say things that are trivially true or true but don't say much of anything important. It's much harder to get at what fundamental components of evolutionary processes, from epigenetics and interactions between species and local environments which change both and therefore make something like "adaption" an incredibly dynamic process to why evolution itself is poorly named because the word suggests a direction that we know doesn't exist.

This much is true. But I mean the evidence that even children can understand. Things like the fossil record, carbon dating, ect. Things that made the root of Darwinian Evolution.

But yes a lot of people that don't believe in evolution comes from a misunderstanding. That chimpanzees will one day become human. Or that a Duck will evolve into a crocodile. But I learned FAR more than that in just my High School biology course.

That's a very good thing to be, in my opinion. And I wouldn't be surprised if by "somewhat" you are being modest.

I'm not a scientists but I'm familiar with the process and terminology of evolution to a degree in which I can say I no longer "believe" in evolution but rather "understand why it works". I don't know everything there is to know about it obviously. No one does. But why it works and the general "how" I know.

It is. But the god in the gaps argument is the name given to the belief that arguments which are thought to require a divine explanation are really just things we don't know. People appeal to scientific authority, peer-review, probability, logic, statistics, and all types of things, but never have I head epistemic justification through an appeal such as "well, the god in the gaps argument demonstrates X" or "you see, we can understand this if we apply the god in the gaps argument and realize that a divine creator..."
In other words, it is the name given to a type of argument by people who believe that these are "gaps". People who use these arguments do not view them as gaps, but as things that cannot be explained ever by the sciences or through any other means but divine power. The justification is not, therefore, of the form "you don't know ergo god", but "x cannot be explained except through god". The former is a fallacy, the latter is not. I believe it is wrong, but that's because I see gaps, not god. Those who believe that these are not gaps and require an explanation no science can provide are not arguing that the lack of knowledge entails a divine creator, but that the impossibility of any explanation other than a divine creator entails a divine creator.

It is important, when pointing out fallacies, to note that the reason something is a "fallacy" holds only when one has a particular view. The name "god in the gaps" is a particular way of characterizing beliefs about what cannot currently be explained by those who believe such things can be explained or at least do not require god to explain. From that point of view, it is a fallacy, but as nobody holds that view and believes that a divine creator is necessary to explain "gaps" (why would they call them that if they believed only a divine creator could explain them?), then it is not a fallacy in and of itself. It is just something that has failed over time, and in particular when it comes to evolution.

Then I conceede the point to you on that. It may not be a fallacy when used correctly but it doesn't make it any more correct.

 

[Skwim]

It's true, but the parts that are not different in those two processes shows that mutation and selection works.

Just as the two dies used in bringing up two 5s are not different. What IS different is how the dies are used (the process) to bring about the result.

Evolution is "mutation, reproduction, natural selection" while breeding is "mutation, reproduction, human selection." No one goes in a intentionally changes the DNA, but the DNA mutates on its own, just like in nature.

Yes, and the difference, as you've pointed out, rests in the process of selection. No one is denying that the genetic machinations involved are the same---this is quite obvious, but to say that selective breeding and evolution are the same process is like saying that consensual sex and rape are the same because they both involve sexual intercourse.

 

[Me Myself]

Just as shooting someone is. We are nature and we are responding according to our nature.

Yes, exactly

 

[Skwim]

I use the breeding example because most people can see and understand the process as they are familiar with breeding and how it works. I forgot that there are people who are going to jump all over me and use the small inconsequential difference to negate my whole point.

Well. I'm glad to see you finally recognize the difference. But a "small inconsequential difference"? Hardly. That you want to equate the process of selective breeding with the process of evolution is to do an injustice to both.

 

[Red Panda]

Well. I'm glad to see you finally recognize the difference. But a "small inconsequential difference"? Hardly. That you want to equate the process of selective breeding with the process of evolution is to do an injustice to both.

You are arguing with me just to argue. And insulting me while you are at it. I'm not going to play your game, go find someone else to troll.

 

[Me Myself]

Well. I'm glad to see you finally recognize the difference. But a "small inconsequential difference"? Hardly. That you want to equate the process of selective breeding with the process of evolution is to do an injustice to both.

Its not only not small, but unexistent.

The difference betweem natural selection and selective breeding is the difference between birds and ostriches: one is just a concrete example of the other.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Layman's terms?

That's kind of the issue, isn't it? Why might a layperson require separate terms? Simplification. And simplification means a certain amount of (at best) ambiguity and frequently means actual inaccuracy.

Its to the degree in which an organism can thrive in order to procreate and pass on its genetic lineage as well as having its offspring survive.

There's actually (so far as I can tell), no right answer. Because while those of us who use fitness functions for mathematical/computational purposes (including descriptions of biological systems), "fitness" is defined by the organism's capacity "to procreate and pass on its genetic lineage", but does not require any actual offspring. For many biologists, the actual capacity is never considered or is considered separately. "Fitness" is purely a matter of offspring, and calculated through the frequency of genetic characteristics (or alleles) that actually exist in the organisms offspring.

Which means that something which is at the core of evolution is not actually agreed upon. This doesn't make the "theory" wrong, of course, its simply a matter of disagreement over the best way to describe some component of it.

I add the last part in on because of the research in the evolution of morality.

Whatever you read on this I guarantee is inaccurate and probably completely wrong. It is a part of evolutionary psychology, which is a method of stealing biological theories and applying them to various types of social cognition, social structures, and psychology in general, all of which are too poorly understood to begin with and all of which are rather hard to test. After all, whatever moral evolutionary processes exist in any species developed long before anything we can observe, so it means that we can only test any given hypothesis by creating a story about how a particular trait would increase the ability of a species to survive. Which means we can tell one another "just so" stories.

Morality does nothing specifically to help the single organism survive but things like family connections and love for their children/mate allow for them to have more successful offspring that will hopefully do the same.

Morality is a very difficult thing to define. It's a concept. It does not readily translate into formal models.

It is a mistake to think fitness simply means stronger, faster ect. Its also relative to its habitat, predators, prey, competition ect.

Not just relative. Beavers build dams. By doing this, they change the environment. Which means that fitness levels change too. Same with trees that gain from forest fires. Environmental changes are both caused by organisms and cause genetic traits of organisms to become more or less "fit" at the same time.

Also, there are different ways in which a trait can be advantageous. Your immune system and stomach are not evolved to be specific to any environment. Your stomach sheds its lining (like a snake's skin) for general purpose adaptability. Same with antibodies. This further increases the difficulty with defining "fitness" to an environment.

These changes over vast vast vast vast periods of time is what evolution is.

Evolutionary processes we generally talk about, like the evolution of visual systems, signaling, group behaviors, etc., take a long time. However, many species can radically change and over a few generations. We've observed this. When we breed animals, we artificially create what can be done via local environmental changes such that drastic changes require a minor trait which exists in some species to be selected very quickly and cause intraspecies genetic variation to shift such that we can say we have a new species, or that species will become extinct.

Also, keep in mind that the most prevalent species that have existed for the longest time have not changed much at all since life began. Simple organisms can reproduce fast enough in such a wide range of environments that once again in terms of fitness they outstrip just about all life on the planet. Yet they don't really "evolve". Which again complicates the whole notion of fitness and evolution but doesn't in any sense challenge the idea that species evolve.

But the general idea though loops back to a very simple concept of "change over time".

It's kind of difficult to change any other way.

 

[Skwim]

You are arguing with me just to argue. And insulting me while you are at it. I'm not going to play your game, go find someone else to troll.

Were you arguing with me just to argue? It does take two carry on a dialogue, you know, so I don't see myself as any less culpable than you. As far as insulting, just what is it that you took as an insult? Perhaps you need to toughen up a bit before continuing to participate on RF here. In any case, I do welcome your comments and look forward to other discussions with you, perhaps even in agreement.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That's kind of the issue, isn't it? Why might a layperson require separate terms? Simplification. And simplification means a certain amount of (at best) ambiguity and frequently means actual inaccuracy.



There's actually (so far as I can tell), no right answer. Because while those of us who use fitness functions for mathematical/computational purposes (including descriptions of biological systems), "fitness" is defined by the organism's capacity "to procreate and pass on its genetic lineage", but does not require any actual offspring. For many biologists, the actual capacity is never considered or is considered separately. "Fitness" is purely a matter of offspring, and calculated through the frequency of genetic characteristics (or alleles) that actually exist in the organisms offspring.

Which means that something which is at the core of evolution is not actually agreed upon. This doesn't make the "theory" wrong, of course, its simply a matter of disagreement over the best way to describe some component of it.


Whatever you read on this I guarantee is inaccurate and probably completely wrong. It is a part of evolutionary psychology, which is a method of stealing biological theories and applying them to various types of social cognition, social structures, and psychology in general, all of which are too poorly understood to begin with and all of which are rather hard to test. After all, whatever moral evolutionary processes exist in any species developed long before anything we can observe, so it means that we can only test any given hypothesis by creating a story about how a particular trait would increase the ability of a species to survive. Which means we can tell one another "just so" stories.




Morality is a very difficult thing to define. It's a concept. It does not readily translate into formal models.



Not just relative. Beavers build dams. By doing this, they change the environment. Which means that fitness levels change too. Same with trees that gain from forest fires. Environmental changes are both caused by organisms and cause genetic traits of organisms to become more or less "fit" at the same time.

Also, there are different ways in which a trait can be advantageous. Your immune system and stomach are not evolved to be specific to any environment. Your stomach sheds its lining (like a snake's skin) for general purpose adaptability. Same with antibodies. This further increases the difficulty with defining "fitness" to an environment.



Evolutionary processes we generally talk about, like the evolution of visual systems, signaling, group behaviors, etc., take a long time. However, many species can radically change and over a few generations. We've observed this. When we breed animals, we artificially create what can be done via local environmental changes such that drastic changes require a minor trait which exists in some species to be selected very quickly and cause intraspecies genetic variation to shift such that we can say we have a new species, or that species will become extinct.

Also, keep in mind that the most prevalent species that have existed for the longest time have not changed much at all since life began. Simple organisms can reproduce fast enough in such a wide range of environments that once again in terms of fitness they outstrip just about all life on the planet. Yet they don't really "evolve". Which again complicates the whole notion of fitness and evolution but doesn't in any sense challenge the idea that species evolve.


It's kind of difficult to change any other way.

For the most part I agree with you on everything. The only specifics we can really call "fittest" is in the most broad sense that they have certain attributes that have caused it to be more successful and thus led to what we have now.

What causes certain things to evolve and some to stay the same ect is still unknown.

Though the morality theory is pretty solid in most ways. It is the best model we do have and I don't think its false. I've read several different papers from several different highly credible people. It is more of "just a theory" in terms that we can't look at a fossil and say "yep they were moral or more moral than the other fossil". But we do have semi-accurate conceptions of how the early humans evolved starting about 200 thousand years ago and how society changed over time. The evolution of morality isn't against evolution in any way and there is no way of specifically knowing exactly how it came to be.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Though the morality theory is pretty solid in most ways.

Which one?

It is the best model we do have and I don't think its false. I've read several different papers from several different highly credible people.

One of them may even be by someone whom I worked with. By I've no doubt that they are highly credible. Nor am I suggesting that what you have read is some pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo. Steven Pinker, among many others, is as qualified as they come. But sometimes entire fields exist within the sciences that over-reach. This is one.