Darwanism its false?

[Jikx]

Darwanism ... its false?

While gathering information for a univeristy assignment, the group decided to base the topic on Natural Selection (against my topic of DNA vs Protien as the material for inheritance).

Basically, we had to choose a theory, that was controversial, but later proven by scientific experimentation.

Now, I thought this would be easy, just plunk a few pictures of Galapagos Finches, a few references to anti-biotic resistance of bacteria over generations, and Kattlewell's experiments on moths and volla, its done.

However, the web being such an infinite trove of information i came across this website - http://www.tdtone.org/darwin/Index.html

A quote from http://www.tdtone.org/evolution/TDTns.htm

According to the theory, each and every living organism existing at this very instant, has been Naturally Selected (otherwise it would not be here). No Darwinist can disagree with this. Suppose that, as an investigation of the process, this type of selection is labeled "NS1". (Note that Survival of the Fittest has also operated here, but this will be ignored for the time). NS1 is the type of selection that has allowed these organisms to be "alive" at this very instant; these organisms are the result of a an unbroken line of forebears which have existed since the "formation" of the particular species. Again, there can be no disagreement. Note that it is equally as true that each and every one of its forebears , (perhaps billions upon billions of each species) also has to have been Naturally Selected (but for the minutely few selected by man). (That is to say, an unbroken line of organisms exists from the "original species" to those of the present day).

But if the time period is long, say 100 MY, and the supposed evolution has occurred, some of the organisms which started out as species "a" have now become species "b", "c" and/or "...n". According to Darwin's theory, these species "b", "c" and/or "n", have evolved and exist because they have been Naturally Selected. (Darwinists, when asked to explain the "cause" of their evolution, would have to reply that they have been "naturally selected"). Let this type of selection (where evolution has occurred) be labeled "NS2".

As a practical example we could look at two species to illustrate the two types of selection: one might be the common Carp (Cyprinus Carpio) which has existed unchanged an estimated 200 MY. The other could be Homo Sapiens which by most Darwinian beliefs has existed for perhaps 10 MY. The former is type NS1 selection, the latter type NS2 selection (where the species have evolved).

It can be easily seen here that type NS1 selection represent stasis, while type NS2 selection represents evolution. It can also be seen that the vast majority are descendants of "stable" genomes (NS1) and, if Darwin's (New Synthesis) theory were correct, a nearly infinitesimal number would carry new genetic material accounting for evolution (NS2).

Granting this incontrovertible fact, an important question of simple logic arises:

Question:
How does the latter action of Natural Selection (NS2) of new genetic material (which under Darwin's theory causes evolution) differ from the former (non evolutionary) type of Natural Selection (NS1) which has to have operated to produce the nearly infinite number, by comparison, of other organisms that have existed but not "evolved"?

Answer:
There is no difference at all.
Conceptually speaking, NS1 is identically equivalent to NS2.
Mathematically speaking, NS1 = NS2.

Thus Darwinian Natural Selection as a mechanism is completely ubiquitous in its action. It produces both stasis (NS1) and evolution (NS2) and if Darwinists are correct in the claim that it is the cause of evolution, then it is also the cause of stasis.

Consequently if some form of evolution has actually taken place, what has logically occurred in each and every case has been only adaptation (evidenced by survival) of the organism, which is solely a characteristic, or capability, of the genome, not a selection action of the environment or conditions, or anything else understood by scientists. The only "selection" made in either case is simple survival. But as above, that is true of all organisms. How then is Natural Selection (or any other type of selection) the cause of evolution?

That was the part i really don't understand. Can anyone explain exactly what the author is trying to describe?

The final rhetorical question, "How then is Natural selection ... the cause of evolution?" (which i presumably believe the author wants a resounding no), seems to be answered in the preceding sentence "The only 'selection' made .. is simple survival". It was also stated that 'Natural Selection' was a cause, not an effect.

Help please... could it be possible my logic is so completely indoctrinated by school science teaching that i can't see?

 

[Jikx]

BTW - this is not 'homework help', as this is out of completely person interest as to how 'Natural Selection' is a fallcy, as the website descibes it.

This was a group assignment, and split into four parts, i was given the 'conclusion' section. Unfortunately for me, it appear much of the 'proof' such as Kattlewell's Moth (that natural selection caused the proliferation of black moths, and decline in white moths in polluted areas) experiments was grossly mishandled, invalidating the results. Indeed, there is increasing evidence that the pollution itself may have caused the colour changes, so in effect nothing was selected at all - simply that white became black.

There's numerous other pieces of scientific evidence (such as antibiotic resistance as stated before, and the striking similarities between human and chicken embryos), that the conclusion I will write will be compatible with that of the rest of the groups.

I'm just interested in the converse of popular scientific thought :)

 

[selfAdjoint]

But it's easy to refute this guy. He pretends that evolution is only a function of the species, so different results for different species seems to set up a coontradiction. But evolution is a function of the species and the environment. It is the environment that does the selecting in natural selection. Sure, competition between individuals, but competition in coping with the environment.

So some environments are stable - deep ocean - and some change regularly, and some sometimes change catastophically (the KT comet strike). So right there you have an explanation of why some species evolve very little over a long time and some evolve a lot.

As far as human evolution goes, have a look of the climate changes during the Quaternary, the period in which genus homo evolved. Ice ages, remissions, war spells, forests spreading and declining savannahs turning into desert. Anthropologist can almost express human evolution as a function of all this challenge.

 

[russ_watters]

His argument is simply a misunderstanding of the way evolution works. Essentially he's saying that since evolution is fairly static in some cases and fairly dynamic in others its a contradiction. No. Like selfAdjoint said, since some ENVIRONMENTS are relatively static, the evolution in those environments is relatively static. And since some environments are dynamic, the evolution occurring in them is fairly dynamic.

Evolution is universally accepted by mainstream scientists. The only "controversy" comes from people don't understand it or don't WANT to believe it (generally for religious reasons).

One thing you should remember about the internet, Jikx, is the sqeaky wheel principle. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Evolution is a non-issue to most scientists except a few biologists and anthropologists. There is no open scientific debate on anything other than very specific aspects of evolution since evolution as a whole is so thoroughly proven. So there is very little real scientific debate to be found on the internet about it. But to people who WANT to believe evolution isn't true, its a hot issue. So they are the ones who have all the websites. So most of the sites purporting to "debate" evolution are actually trying to disprove it.

 

[FZ+]

In addentum, Darwinism was never completely right. But modern evolutionary biology is much more than the original theories of Darwin. We now have also an understanding of the processes of co-evolution, intermittent adaptation, symbiosis, the "selfish gene" and other mechanisms that also play important part of adaptation.

 

[Zero]

Isn't the term 'Darwinism' a Creationist invention?

 

[Another God]

Yeah, it has been answered I guess.

One thing you should have explained to you one day JikX, is the concept of..hmmm..whats it called. The 'evolutionary terrain'? Its the concept of a diagram which shows the relative values of adaptaions in any given environment. If you draw a graph, where y = value of adaptation to a creatures chance of survival and procreation vs. x = the adaptation (and you have every possible adaptation listed next to each other), then you end up getting a graph of a long hilly looking terrain.

ON this graph, each peak or each mound would be the local maxima, and the trough the local minima. If a creature exists with a phenotype which places it anywhere down the bottom or on the side of a hill, then natural selection will tend to 'push' the phenotype of that creature up the hill. If a creature exists with a phenotype which places that creature at the top of a hill, then NS will tend to hold the phenotype of that creature fixed on that point.

BUT, and here is the point: If the environment changes (and the environment includes all factors: Plants, animals, temperatures, humidity, water availability...etc) then the terrain of the graph wilkl change. Phenotypes stay the same, but the relative value of any phenotype in a given environment is obviously different to the value of the same phenotype in another environment.



THE POINT: If you understand what I am talking about (I will try to find an actual example of one of these), then you should be able to imagine one of these graphs. Now imagine that you have three hills on one of these graphs, hill one is middle sized, hill two is lower and hill three is the highest. A creature exists which has the phenotype expressed on hill one. It has a local maxima for the given environment, so it will probably survive and reproduce well. NO creatures exist for phenotype 2 or 3. Phenotype 3 would be better adapted for the environment than phenotype one, but for the creature to evolve into phenotype 3, it has to un-adapt itself down the trough between its phenotype and phenotype 2, survive as a lesser adaptation against the more competitive phenotype 1, and then un-adapt itself again before it could reach phenotype 3, the absolute maxima for that given environment.

This just wouldn't happen in the wild. If a creature exists at a localk maxima, then it won't unadapt itself. It's just like a ball rolling uphill. It could...but it wouldn't unless pushed.

 

[Another God]

Searching for 'Fitness Landscape + Evolution' on Google:

I found this downloadable slideshow:

http://www.biol.rug.nl/theobio/events/downloads/1 [Broken]

..

and well... a whole bunch of 'fitness landscapes' applied to AI, Economics, Physics...and periodically to biology. But not one damn website dedicated to explaining what they are.

Ahhh, here we go. This site at least has a diagram of what I am trying to explain. SO if nothing else, you can look at them. (except in its example, it has shown the peaks to be least fit. This way a rolling ball can represent the way a phenotype will be pushed to evolve as such.)


If you really care, check out talkorigins.org, and try searching it for fitness landscapes. It has some stuff in it...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Isn't the term 'Darwinism' a Creationist invention?

Yeah, I think so. Its supposed to make it sound like a religion.

 

[Deslaar]

Originally posted by Zero
Isn't the term 'Darwinism' a Creationist invention?

Darwinism might be but neo-Darwinism isn't. "Neo" is not part of the Creationist vocabulary.

 

[Pauly Man]

Nice explanation AG. I'll look at the slide shows and see what they are like, if they are crap I'll give you a hand explaining the concept.

 

[Jikx]

thanks for your explanations everyone.

how is neo-darwanism different from classical darwanism? Is it drastically, or simply builds further?

 

[Another God]

Neo Darwinism is just the continuation and correct of Darwins theory.

It corrects his mistakes about genetic transfer etc (obviously by incorporating what we know about DNA, mutations etc), and also incorporates more complex issues. Rate of evolution, punctuated equilibrium models...etc...

At least, that is my understanding. I am not certain about it, I just have an idea where Darwin is now considered 'wrong' or not completely there, and how our current understanding of evolution compares to what he wrote.

And honestly, Darwin wasn't far from the mark. That man deserves all the respect in the world. If only he had of known about Gregor Mendels work...he would have had almost everything. True genius.

 

[GlamGein]

Darwin's ideas on Natural Selection were pretty good, I will give him that much credit. But he was no genius. In fact, the same theory was formulated at the same time by a guy named Wallace, and if it wasn't for the goading of friends, Darwin never would have published. His ideas about sex were a little too "of his era" to be palatable.

For a breakdown of evolution and some cool articles, go to talkorigins.com, I think it is.

 

[Pauly Man]

Wallace did indeed come up with a similar theory, however both theories were arrived at independantly, with Darwin developing his before Wallace. There is nothing wrong with this situation, it happens now and then, look at Newton and Leibniz for example (calculus).

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by GlamGein
Darwin's ideas on Natural Selection were pretty good, I will give him that much credit. But he was no genius. In fact, the same theory was formulated at the same time by a guy named Wallace, and if it wasn't for the goading of friends, Darwin never would have published. His ideas about sex were a little too "of his era" to be palatable.

Darwin had his theory of evolution for 20 years or so before he found out that Wallace was about to print his similar theory. Just because someone else came up with a similar theory at a similar time does not reduce the genius of the discoverer.

And yeah, most of his work was very 'of his era'...but thus is life. Most people are of their era.

 

[O Great One]

evolution or creation

Here's one way of thinking about creation or evolution Jikx.

You have 100 ping-pong balls numbered 1 to 100. You put them in a big bag and shuffle them up. There is a room with 100 boxes numbered 1 to 100. You give your bag of ping-pong balls to a friend of yours and tell him, "Go into the room with the boxes and, starting with box #1, reach into the bag and pull out one ping-pong ball without looking at it and put it in box #1. Then do the same thing for every box all the way through box #100." Your friend agrees, then leaves, and returns a short time later. You ask your friend "Did you randomly put the ping-pong balls into the boxes?" Your friend says yes. You then go into the room with the boxes. You look at box number #1 and find ping-pong ball #1. You then look in box number #2 and find ping-pong ball #2 and so on all the way through box #100. You ask yourself, "How is this possible? The odds are only 1 in 100!"

If you believe in creation, you think your friend is lying.
If you believe in evolution, you think your friend is telling the truth.

 

[Pauly Man]

Actually the odds are a hell of a lot less than 1 in 100! More than likely even less than 1 in 1 000 000!

I am extremely rusty with my probability, but I seem to recall that working out the probability of this problem would be similar to working out the chance of winning a lottery, and that problem requires the use of permutations and combinations.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by O Great One
If you believe in creation, you think your friend is lying.
If you believe in evolution, you think your friend is telling the truth.

That is a completely flawed way of looking at the laws of probability. The probability of your friend putting the balls in *ANY* order is exactly the same. Just because him putting them in that particular order seems unlikely doesn't mean it is any less likely than any other order.

 

[GlamGein]

I am not saying there was a problem with it. Darwin was not a genius just because he had a good idea. Some of his other ideas were lame, and he was pretty much a loser. His golden moment was the idea of natural selection. Wallace had much better character, and came from a lot less.

 

[damgo]

Originally posted by O Great One
Here's one way of thinking about creation or evolution Jikx.

You have 100 ping-pong balls numbered 1 to 100. You put them in a big bag and shuffle them up. There is a room with 100 boxes numbered 1 to 100. You give your bag of ping-pong balls to a friend of yours and tell him, "Go into the room with the boxes and, starting with box #1, reach into the bag and pull out one ping-pong ball without looking at it and put it in box #1. Then do the same thing for every box all the way through box #100." Your friend agrees, then leaves, and returns a short time later. You ask your friend "Did you randomly put the ping-pong balls into the boxes?" Your friend says yes. You then go into the room with the boxes. You look at box number #1 and find ping-pong ball #1. You then look in box number #2 and find ping-pong ball #2 and so on all the way through box #100. You ask yourself, "How is this possible? The odds are only 1 in 100!"

LOL... this parable says more about creationists and their understanding of science/probability, than it does about evolution itself.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by damgo
LOL... this parable says more about creationists and their understanding of science/probability, than it does about evolution itself.

Volumes.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by O Great One
Here's one way of thinking about creation or evolution Jikx.

Oh, and while I suspect that no one else has said this yet because is so damn obvious, I want to say it just incase you have missed this fact O Great One:

This is not a way to think about Evolution at all.

 

[amos behavin]

I believe his math is right

But it's not the odds, it's the probability. Odds and probability are not the same.

He states; ...are 1/100!
That's true. The "!" representing "factorial".

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by amos behavin
But it's not the odds, it's the probability. Odds and probability are not the same.

He states; ...are 1/100!
That's true. The "!" representing "factorial".

www.dictionary.com

 

[amos behavin]

Hi Russ:
The probability of this event occurring is 1/100!
The probability of this event not happening is 1-(1/100!)

The odds of this event not happening are 100!-1:1

Almost the same I admit, but odds and probability are not the same thing. If any of you guys go to Vegas, or even get into a crap game, you'll find that it's helpful to know the difference.
Consider flipping a coin: What is the probability of heads? Then what are the odds that you'll flip heads?
Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Thanks

Amos Behavin

 

[Pauly Man]

Originally posted by amos behavin
But it's not the odds, it's the probability. Odds and probability are not the same.

He states; ...are 1/100!
That's true. The "!" representing "factorial".

Well if he meant "!" to mean factorial then I agree. However it is difficult to tell, as no brackets were used, I took the "!" to be an exclamation point, as it is in my post.

 

[amos behavin]

Hi Pauly Man:
I agree with you. When I first read that, I said, "This guy's a idjit". But then I realized what he was doing. Maybe he's just having a little fun with everybody?

 

[Jikx]

Originally posted by O Great One
Here's one way of thinking about creation or evolution Jikx.

You have 100 ping-pong balls numbered 1 to 100. You put them in a big bag and shuffle them up. There is a room with 100 boxes numbered 1 to 100. You give your bag of ping-pong balls to a friend of yours and tell him, "Go into the room with the boxes and, starting with box #1, reach into the bag and pull out one ping-pong ball without looking at it and put it in box #1. Then do the same thing for every box all the way through box #100." Your friend agrees, then leaves, and returns a short time later. You ask your friend "Did you randomly put the ping-pong balls into the boxes?" Your friend says yes. You then go into the room with the boxes. You look at box number #1 and find ping-pong ball #1. You then look in box number #2 and find ping-pong ball #2 and so on all the way through box #100. You ask yourself, "How is this possible? The odds are only 1 in 100!"

If you believe in creation, you think your friend is lying.
If you believe in evolution, you think your friend is telling the truth.

If it were my friend, there would be no balls left.. he would have racked them all .

It kind of irked me that the term "Survival of the Fittest", is a bit odd in that it has to be true - of course the fittest will survive, wouldn't make sense if a mouse born with no eyes (for example) would survive. And Natural Selection is much the same. I guess Darwin just put 2+2 together.. seems so logical now, maybe not back in those days.

BTW, i believe we were created, the whole universe was created - because if we weren't, obviously we wouldn't be here discussing it.

Now, I do think we've hit a limitation of the english language, in the past two sentences I've inferred that "Nature" selects (whatever nature is..) and that someone "created" the universe. Thats what i find so confusing, is that we always seem to personify everything. I've also found this during chemistry, one particle is "attracted" to another one.. someone need to write new words that get rid of the "life" of things that aren't

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Jikx
I guess Darwin just put 2+2 together.. seems so logical now, maybe not back in those days.

Darwin did much more than just coin a couple of phrases. He put meaning into them.

BTW, i believe we were created, the whole universe was created - because if we weren't, obviously we wouldn't be here discussing it.

Hmm, to be here doesn't require that we were created. It simply requires that we exist...

Now, I do think we've hit a limitation of the english language, in the past two sentences I've inferred that "Nature" selects (whatever nature is..) and that someone "created" the universe. Thats what i find so confusing, is that we always seem to personify everything. I've also found this during chemistry, one particle is "attracted" to another one.. someone need to write new words that get rid of the "life" of things that aren't

It is unfortunate that talking without teleological speach (ie: Speach which implies design, and purpose), and talking without personifying everything is very hard. As long as it is understood that we know that cells don't 'think' and they don't 'choose to evolve' and that x feature didn't 'evolve for y purpose'...then the difficulty in our typical methods of speach shouldn't be a problem.

nature, can be taken as another word for 'The Universe' when used in the sense of natural selection. It applies everywhere, although in this situation, it is being applied to our local part of the universe, Earth.

You are claiming that someone 'created' the universe. This is not a problem with english, but a 'problem' with your own beliefs.

And attraction is a more than apropriate word to describe how atoms interact. Electronegative attraction is precisely what happens. The 'attraction' which people feel towards one another is the abusive use of the word in this situation.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by GlamGein
Darwin's ideas on Natural Selection were pretty good, I will give him that much credit. But he was no genius. In fact, the same theory was formulated at the same time by a guy named Wallace, and if it wasn't for the goading of friends, Darwin never would have published. His ideas about sex were a little too "of his era" to be palatable.

For a breakdown of evolution and some cool articles, go to talkorigins.com, I think it is.

Genious schmenious. What does that matter?
To paraphrase Gould, new scientific ideas are "in the air" and many researchers simulataneously wave their nets around. The ideas of evolution were around even before Darwin and Wallace. (Is that like Wallace and Gromit? ) The thing is that Darwin developed the idea further and gathered/presented the evidence more thoroughly than ever before. Even Wallace acknowledged that Darwin presented a better case than he did. (Wallace & Darwin wrote to each other often once their initial publications were issued.) Darwin was also correct in some aspects of the theory where Wallace was not (e.g., effects of other evolutionary "forces" like sexual selection, applicability of natural selection to the human brain).