Split from Pro/Anti Evolution Debate

[cladking]

 

 

Now you could argue that this is intelligent design, as we, an intelligence, are 'breeding' or designing these new bacterial strains, but we'd be fooling ourselves.

It is merely a population surviving various environmental hardships by leveraging random mutations and passing those mutations from one generation to the next.

Is that not evolution ?

 

 

Yes. Exactly.

 

This is the nature of evolution. The bacterium(s) could survive for millions of years and evolve but without exposure to the antibiotic the off spring in a million years would probably be exactly the same in reaction to it as the current one. Mother nature is the chemist and invents millions of different ways to force things to evolve, and most of them are caused by extinctions of individuals and this especially applies to periods when the absolute number of individuals approaches zero.

 

Evolution has little or nothing to do with survival of the smartest or survival of the fittest because every species, every individual, strives for smart and fast. Every individual attempts to survive at virtually any cost and being "fit" is normally not a significant advantage. In humans it is a decided disadvantage unless you're 7' tall and can dribble a basketball.

 

The "theory" of evolution does a poor job of explaining observation and logic.

[Fuzzwood]

 

 

Yes. Exactly.

 

This is the nature of evolution. The bacterium(s) could survive for millions of years and evolve but without exposure to the antibiotic the off spring in a million years would probably be exactly the same in reaction to it as the current one. Mother nature is the chemist and invents millions of different ways to force things to evolve, and most of them are caused by extinctions of individuals and this especially applies to periods when the absolute number of individuals approaches zero.

 

Evolution has little or nothing to do with survival of the smartest or survival of the fittest because every species, every individual, strives for smart and fast. Every individual attempts to survive at virtually any cost and being "fit" is normally not a significant advantage. In humans it is a decided disadvantage unless you're 7' tall and can dribble a basketball.

 

The "theory" of evolution does a poor job of explaining observation and logic.

Eh no, not really. You impose a consciousness to nature that isn't there nor does it force, invent or steer anything. Mutations just happen and those that increase your survivability long enough to get laid are passed on. If you are killed before you got laid, your mutation won't be passed on and as such wasn't 'fit' enough to survive.

 

That's all what survival of the fittest really is. Survive long enough to get laid.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Fuzzwood

[cladking]

Nothing is known to be fact that denies ID. This hardly means it's a valid "hypothesis" merely that it is an untestable one at this time using the rules of modern science. Current metaphysics precludes our ability to address the question and I'm not going to say why I believe this is. Suffiice to say we are extrapolating the general from the specific and this is fraught with poor methodologies and methodologies outside of metaphysics.

[iNow]

Nothing is known to be fact that denies ID.

Correction: EVERYTHING that denies ID is known to be fact. A better question for you is, "what specific claims does ID make that you feel have not yet been falsified?"

[cladking]

Eh no, not really. You impose a consciousness to nature that isn't there nor does it force, invent or steer anything. Mutations just happen and those that increase your survivability long enough to get laid are passed on. If you are killed before you got laid, your mutation won't be passed on and as such wasn't 'fit' enough to survive.

 

That's all what survival of the fittest really is. Survive long enough to get laid.

 

Sorry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did not mean to imply that mother nature/ God/ reality/ the gods were conscious and actually mad chemists who toyed with their playthings. I merely meant that from our perspective and for practical purposes that what appears to be random in terms of reality rarely is. "Randomness" largely occurs only on the tiniest scale or longest periods. What happens in the here and now tends to be "ordained" by the "laws" of phyics. We tend to understand most events in the here and now even when we don't really understand the laws that seem to drive them. We exrtrapolate the specific to the general and call it theory. This works better with things that can be quantified than with things that can not becauyse we can more closdely approximate nature in the lab with things that can be quantified and taken apart.

 

You can't take evolution apart in the lab nor can it be truly quantified.

Correction: EVERYTHING that denies ID is known to be fact. A better question for you is, "what specific claims does ID make that you feel have not yet been falsified?"

 

This seems to be where I get into trouble because people can't see anything without our beliefs.

 

Everything we know is inconsistent with ID because everything we know is extrapolated from experiment. ID makes a poor hypothesis only because it is untestable. This doesn't mean it's false, merely that arguments to support or deny it aren't really valid at this point in time. Obviously one doesn't need ID to make a case for scientific knowledge and scientific knowledge does not support ID.

[Moontanman]

 

 

 

The bulk of the "falsifiable evidence" for evolution is actually extrapolation of the specific to the general. It's impossible to falsify the legitimacy of these extrapolations at this time and they exist outside of metaphysics and are supported primarily by logic dependent on language but most importantly, are at odds with observation.

 

 

I'd like to see some citations for this word salad...

[cladking]

 

 

I'd like to see some citations for this word salad...

 

It's impossible to defend what you don't understand. Tell me what you do understand and I'll defend it. Tell me what you don't understand and I'll rephrase it.

[iNow]

It's impossible to defend what you don't understand.

So, let's review the exchange that just took place here.

 

Moontanman asked you to defend what you just said.

 

In response, and instead of supporting your assertions or attempting to defend what you just said, you stated that it's impossible to defend what you don't understand.

 

Translation: You don't understand what you are saying and don't know what you're talking about. Got it.

[cladking]

So, let's review the exchange that just took place here.

 

Moontanman asked you to defend what you just said.

 

In response, and instead of supporting your assertions or attempting to defend what you just said, you stated that it's impossible to defend what you don't understand.

 

Translation: You don't understand what you are saying and don't know what you're talking about. Got it.

 

 

Your review is poor.

 

There's no way to know if he wants me to defend my stance on evolution or why I believe the theory is incorrect. He called my statement "word salad". To me this means he got no meaning at all or very limited meaning from it. There are two statements and the second is composed of at least four parts.

 

The concept of defending "word salad" is absurd. I am doomed before I start.

[John Cuthber]

...

He called my statement "word salad". To me this means he got no meaning at all or very limited meaning from it.

...

That's because it doesn't have any real meaning.

I'm not sure that citations for it are the issue.

Clarification would help.

What do you consider "The bulk of the "falsifiable evidence" for evolution is actually extrapolation of the specific to the general. It's impossible to falsify the legitimacy of these extrapolations at this time and they exist outside of metaphysics and are supported primarily by logic dependent on language but most importantly, are at odds with observation. " to mean?

[cladking]

That's because it doesn't have any real meaning.

I'm not sure that citations for it are the issue.

Clarification would help.

What do you consider "The bulk of the "falsifiable evidence" for evolution is actually extrapolation of the specific to the general. It's impossible to falsify the legitimacy of these extrapolations at this time and they exist outside of metaphysics and are supported primarily by logic dependent on language but most importantly, are at odds with observation. " to mean?

 

"The bulk of the "falsifiable evidence" for evolution is actually extrapolation of the specific to the general..."

 

There is no falsifiable evidence for the concept of survival of the fittest as the chiief component of species change. Rather all the "evidence" is extrapolated from experiment that apply only to specific facts and then is applied to nature through extrapolation. This extrapolation can not be shown experimentally to be legitimate application of real scientific knowledge. The extrapolations are outside of the definitions, axioms, and methodology of science. The extrapolations are language and "logic" dependent. The extrapolations are not consistent with observation.

[Arete]

There is no falsifiable evidence for the concept of survival of the fittest as the chiief component of species change. Rather all the "evidence" is extrapolated from experiment that apply only to specific facts and then is applied to nature through extrapolation. This extrapolation can not be shown experimentally to be legitimate application of real scientific knowledge. The extrapolations are outside of the definitions, axioms, and methodology of science. The extrapolations are language and "logic" dependent.

 

Sorry, but there's plenty of evidence (this paper is a particularly good review of examples of ecological speciation http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01240.x/fullbut for more evidence,

see below) including direct observation. This statement is simply wrong - there's no other way to put it really.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6989/abs/nature02556.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00715.x/full

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534709001268

The extrapolations are not consistent with observation.

 

Precisely which observations are you referring to?

[cladking]

 

Sorry, but there's plenty of evidence (this paper is a particularly good review of examples of ecological speciation http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01240.x/fullbut for more evidence,

see below) including direct observation. This statement is simply wrong - there's no other way to put it really.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5915/737

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6989/abs/nature02556.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00715.x/full

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534709001268

 

Precisely which observations are you referring to?

 

 

I've already mentioned several in passing and presented the logic that I believe better explains them than "survival of the fittest".

 

For example, if you kill every single housefly that you see in a room, within a very few generations you'll find that any population that still exists will land on the underside of objects where they can't be seen. This flies in the face of "survival of the fittest" which suggests only the most active and fastest flies would escape mechanical means of killing them. This trait will simply blend into the general population of all flies giving them (groups of individuals) a better chance of surviving the next time "nature" tries to eradicate them by the same means. Indeed, the fact that the trait isn't widespread among flies suggests relatively few people (or nature) tries to eradicate them through killing all that are visible from the perspective of normal human.

 

Even if don't kill every single one (the hunter must be smarter than his prey) the fact is you don't necessarily get faster or smarter prey; you get what you're really selecting for as species more tolerant of dehydration or more sensitive to light. That the specific individauals that survive are fitter or smarter tends to be irrelevant unless the factor killing them is actually related to speed or intelligence.

 

Survival of the fittest simply doesn't normally apply as a cause of change in species because every animal can birthe fit or unfit offspring. Almosrt every animal is fit to the standards of its genes and habitat. All life is individual and almost all death caused by disease and predation is primarily "random" as to fitness of the individiual or related to specific factors that cause the animal to be sick, wounded, or otherwise unfit. Sick, wounded, and unfit animals can still reproduce and have normal off spring in most cases. Some of these off spring might have a rare trait (like landing under tables) that saves a local colony or the entire species. Indeed, sick wounded or unfit animal might survive largely on the basis of its condition.

 

The processes that give rise to reproduction (birth) and death of inviduals are exceedingly complex in each instance and far more complex when looked at as a species. Individuals which have the highest probability of survival vary dependent on ALL the factors which might kill them. Since extinction events select on any of numerous parameters and normally don't involve "fitness" these are the primary drivers of change. Nature is far more subtle than merely killing the hindmost. Lions look for the old and sick but even the sick might get well and the old might have many offspring. A one year old wildebeast has little chance against a lion whetther it's fit or not. Nature selects for specific traits and genes and these arise when other traits and genes have been destroyed.

[Strange]

 

This flies in the face of "survival of the fittest" which suggests only the most active and fastest flies would escape mechanical means of killing them. .

 

Oh good grief. You have made it obvious that you don't know much (*) about evolution, but do you really think "survival of the fittest" means that the fastest and strongest survive? I mean .... good grief.

 

(*) "Nothing" might be more accurate, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

You can't take evolution apart in the lab nor can it be truly quantified.

 

Of course you can. And of course it can. It is a science so by definition it is quantitative. Some parts of evolutionary theory are highly mathematical.

[Moontanman]

 

 

I've already mentioned several in passing and presented the logic that I believe better explains them than "survival of the fittest".

 

For example, if you kill every single housefly that you see in a room, within a very few generations you'll find that any population that still exists will land on the underside of objects where they can't be seen. This flies in the face of "survival of the fittest" which suggests only the most active and fastest flies would escape mechanical means of killing them. This trait will simply blend into the general population of all flies giving them (groups of individuals) a better chance of surviving the next time "nature" tries to eradicate them by the same means. Indeed, the fact that the trait isn't widespread among flies suggests relatively few people (or nature) tries to eradicate them through killing all that are visible from the perspective of normal human.

 

Even if don't kill every single one (the hunter must be smarter than his prey) the fact is you don't necessarily get faster or smarter prey; you get what you're really selecting for as species more tolerant of dehydration or more sensitive to light. That the specific individauals that survive are fitter or smarter tends to be irrelevant unless the factor killing them is actually related to speed or intelligence.

 

Survival of the fittest simply doesn't normally apply as a cause of change in species because every animal can birthe fit or unfit offspring. Almosrt every animal is fit to the standards of its genes and habitat. All life is individual and almost all death caused by disease and predation is primarily "random" as to fitness of the individiual or related to specific factors that cause the animal to be sick, wounded, or otherwise unfit. Sick, wounded, and unfit animals can still reproduce and have normal off spring in most cases. Some of these off spring might have a rare trait (like landing under tables) that saves a local colony or the entire species. Indeed, sick wounded or unfit animal might survive largely on the basis of its condition.

 

The processes that give rise to reproduction (birth) and death of inviduals are exceedingly complex in each instance and far more complex when looked at as a species. Individuals which have the highest probability of survival vary dependent on ALL the factors which might kill them. Since extinction events select on any of numerous parameters and normally don't involve "fitness" these are the primary drivers of change. Nature is far more subtle than merely killing the hindmost. Lions look for the old and sick but even the sick might get well and the old might have many offspring. A one year old wildebeast has little chance against a lion whetther it's fit or not. Nature selects for specific traits and genes and these arise when other traits and genes have been destroyed.

 

 

So basically what you are saying is that you have no idea what evolution is or how it works and think that survival of the fittest means survival of the strong? Populations evolve, not individuals, yes some fit individuals will die anyway but the group continues.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

 

Interpreted as denoting a mechanism[edit]

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as the term does not accurately describe the mechanism of natural selection as biologists conceive it. Natural selection is differential reproduction (not just survival) and the object of scientific study is usually differential reproduction resulting from traits that have a genetic basis under the circumstances in which the organism finds itself, which is called fitness, but in a technical sense which is quite different from the common meaning of the word.^[6]

 

[cladking]

 

 

 

So basically what you are saying is that you have no idea what evolution is or how it works and think that survival of the fittest means survival of the strong? Populations evolve, not individuals, yes some fit individuals will die anyway but the group continues.

 

 

Yes. I do not know what causes change in species but unlike most people I believe I know a framework that an understanding could be acquired with great effort and time, and I know I don't know much of anything.

 

Did you read the link you supplied? Did you try reading it in light of my contentions so you could see nothing in it contradicted what I'm averring?

 

It's a titanic coincidence but I just found Judges 7 which might describe (in confused language) an ancient extinction event. Despite the nature of the thread an explanation might be considered off-topic. Things that destroy "populations" are no more survivable for the fit than the unfit. They select for trivial characteristics that are expressions of genes different than the rest.

 

In the real world there is simply no such thing as "populations" or "rabbits". There are simply groups of individuals who are of the same species with many ways to express their genes. Those who express them "wrong" according to mother nature's whim will die. The off spring of those who survive are different in many ways than the group that existed before.

[Arete]

In the real world there is simply no such thing as "populations" or "rabbits".

 

This is categorically untrue, as I stated in the other thread you claimed it. We can define populations using basic Hardy Weinberg principles.

 

It seems like your objections are based on a faulty understanding of evolutionary theory, and falsely assumed "observations" which contradict what is a actually observed in nature.

[cladking]

I just can't seem to make this point.

 

It seems highly presumptuous to describe the "average rabbit" that comprises a population when we don't fully understand even one rabbit. "Rabbit" is a construct and a tool (a word) for communication rather than an actual physical reality. "Population" is a construct as well. It is comprised of a number of average rabbits. We then assume that these fall on a bell curve that reflects their ability to survive "natural selection" that occurs in various ways that favor the healthy. This seems to fit our observations because we sometimes see a rabbit and her "bunny" escape a bobcat or many rabbits in a population not sicken and die in a plague. But it simply can't be shown in any of these cases that the survivors were IN ANY WAY more "fit" than those that died. "Evolutionary theory" is simply based omn a long series of assumptions that can't be shown experimentally. Rather it just stands to reason that some individuals are more adept at the things required to survive and that anything that kills most of a population must be "robust". The facts simply appear to say these "obvious" assumptions are wrong. That they are wrong is why there are missing links and why cheetahs can still outrun all rabbits even after millions of years of evolution.

 

"The Hardy–Weinberg principle (also known as the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, model, theorem, or law) states that allele and genotype frequencies in a population will remain constant from generation to generation in the absence of other evolutionary influences. These influences include mate choice, mutation, selection, genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive."

 

I'm arguing against the very terms upon which this model is based. You're presenting an answer replete with the current assumptions and I'm postulating the cause of change in species. The model simply predicts based on "mate choice, mutation, selection, genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive." (etc). I'm not suggesting all these things aren't involved so much as that all of these things are largely dependent on very subtle and currently unquantifiable and unknowable causations. If we don't understand why even one rabbit chooses the mate iut does then how do we define the mate selection in a "population" of "average rabbits" that doesn't even exist? Are biologists now going to have a dating service for rabbits? (They don't seem to need one by the by) The point of this thread (as I understand it) is to identify the origin of life and the cause of species change. Again it appears that the answer here is related to the way genes are expressed in individuals. If your genes allow you do do something fatal or improve the odds that an action will be fatal then all your diverse genes are lost to the future of the gene pool. It doesn't matter if the cause is as complex as being too slow or as simple as starting off on the right foot. If it's wrong only those who are fast or only those who start on their left foot will survive. These inviduals are much more complex than a single gene and will breed a changed species. The causes of population reduction tend to be subtle. In a tidal wave individuals by the waterside have a far worse chance than those in the hills and they tend to have genes that will make them more likely to by the water. Survivors are simply different and not more fit or better at being "naturally selected". It has nothing to do with mate selection and the like because these factors too are a result of very sibtle and unidentified causes.

 

This appears to be an ever ongoing process but it moves fastest when large percentages of the population are lost.

It has suddenly occurred to me that my beliefs are causing me to try to wrest back some words that have been co-opted by religion so some people might think I'm trying to insert religious concepts into the discussion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Perhaps the subtle forces that drive evolution really are the hand of God but this is far from my contention. I'm merely saying that we have it wrong. There's a lot of irony here about how this has come to pass but the reality is that logic, observation, and experiment are the sole means of learning reproducible facts about nature. It is only science that will produce understanding. It is not my fault if paradigms are wrong and that my arguments apparenrtly sound like religion to many people based on how negatively they are reacting. There's a reason for this as well. Everything has a reason but the reason is usually remarkably simple in a world that is infinitely complex. We can't see the complexity because we build paradigms to take its place. We can't see the simplicity because it's hidden within the complexity or it's hidden behind the paradigm.

 

The evidence and logic against evolution as being "natural selection" seems fairly strong. Nature (evolution) is brutal when she selects but rarely brutish. It's not the result of a million rabbits being run down by a million cheetahs; it's a million rabbits being wiped out by a subtle force. It's not a loving or vengeful God but rather the forces of nature "conspiring" to affect large numbers of individuals.

[MigL]

You seem to have the expression "survival of the fittest" confused with evolution.

At the very least, you do not understand the context of 'fittest'.

 

Your housefly 'experiment' from a couple of posts back indicates that you have a general grasp of how the environment favors those best adapted to it. So would it simplify things for you if the new slogan for evolution was " survival of those best adapted to their environment" ? ( Note that this isn't strictly true either. )

 

The meaning of 'fittest' is not necessarily stronger, faster, more reproductive, more intelligent, more dexterous, etc, but it could be.

[Arete]

I just can't seem to make this point.

 

Your "point" seems to be based on a common, gross misinterpretation of what fitness means in the context of evolutionary biology, and a subsequent series of false assumptions regarding observations surrounding fitness.

 

In the context of evolution, fitness is the quotient of genetic material an individual in a population passes on to the subsequent generation. Whether that individual increases its fitness by avoiding predation, surviving a disease, or whatever else you're proposing as a mechanism for increased fitness is incidental. Fitness, in an evolutionary sense is the actual rate of fecundity - nothing more, nothing less. The role of differential fitness (i.e. selection) in evolution is comprehensively documented via observation on many scales.

 

Resultantly, the claim that differences in fitness driving evolution is "contradictory to observation" is comprehensively wrong and trivially refuted by observation (see previous links to observational data) . I don't really understand how you can continue to make that argument and if you intend to do so, I'd really like to see the contradictory observations you keep alluding to, rather than continued speculation.

[Delta1212]

Thank you for posing a kind and helpful reply. I actually understand what you're trying to say.

This was heartening enough that I'm going to make a good faith effort to help you out. As a teenager, I got involved in a lot of evolution debates and, frankly, I owe most of my own knowledge of the subject to those debates.

 

That said, I think most people who get involved in said debates online (present forum excluded because there are a lot of people here who do know their stuff) simply do not understand how evolution works at all, but think they do. And I do not say this in a "Oh, you'd believe it if only you just understood it" way. I mean that in an "Evolution is actually a pretty straightforward theory, but I've run into way more people who have no idea how it's actually supposed to work than the reverse" way, and that includes people who are on the evolution side in debates.

 

There were a few times I actually switched sides mid-debate because some of the other people who were ostensibly on my side clearly had no idea what the heck they were talking about, and I have little patience for the spread of misinformation even if it's in support of my "side."

 

So, I have a question for you that I think is going to be critical to doing well in any debate about evolution regardless of which side you are on: How do you think evolution is actually supposed to work according to the theory (in as much detail as you can come up with)?

 

Because it's much easier to debate a subject (any subject) when you have as in-depth of an understanding of that subject as possible. That let's you anticipate potential arguments from the other side and let's you improvise arguments as needed. A well prepared debater will be able to debate a subject from either side and do it as well as it can be done.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Delta1212

[cladking]

You seem to have the expression "survival of the fittest" confused with evolution.

At the very least, you do not understand the context of 'fittest'.

 

Your housefly 'experiment' from a couple of posts back indicates that you have a general grasp of how the environment favors those best adapted to it. So would it simplify things for you if the new slogan for evolution was " survival of those best adapted to their environment" ? ( Note that this isn't strictly true either. )

 

The meaning of 'fittest' is not necessarily stronger, faster, more reproductive, more intelligent, more dexterous, etc, but it could be.

 

 

You're on the right track here.

 

"Fittest" is exactly the best suited to the enviroment but when the enviroment is stable, the total number of individuals will be stable as well. Being fit means a somewhat increased chance of passing on genes in a somewhat stable number of individuals.

 

But by defintion most individuals will die during population declines (all else being equal and assuming some volatility in populations). Population declines are by definition caused by changes in the enviroment so the definition of the most "fit" changes to suit the new conditions. Certainly species lower on the food chain can have more variable numbers of individuals caused by any number of factors and these can be rather gross like increased predation or decreased food supplies. But among the life forms that are higher up and even the lowest species many of the factors that cause suddden and severe population changes are really very subtle. If a species of wasp lays eggs late in the season but there is an early freeze the egg laying adults can be almost all be killed resulting in a virtual extinction of the species (at least locally). But if there are a few survivors these individuals can and will often share some insignificant characteristic. Perhaps the freeze didn't affect patches of ground that was in the sunlight all day or patches under willow trees. Any wasps that happened to overnight in one of these areas survived where the others did not. My contention is that these individuals that camped out in distinct places did so because of their genes in some, many, or all cases. The degree to which their genes led to their survival defines how much different their off spring are when they mate.

 

What defines an individual is neither nature nor nurture because all individuals are wholly at the mercy of their genes and wholly at the mercy of their knowledge. Some indiviuduals might be prone to stay under the willow or the sunny spot but won't because they have an overriding reason to stay in a place that proves fatal. Nature doesn't "care" why an individual is destroyed merely that tissue freezes below a certain temperature. Nature doesn't "care" if the entire species is destroyed. But when large numbers are, the survivors will be fundamentally different in terms of the genes which were selected by the change of conditions. Of course changes can be entirely "random" such as with massive predation by a species that never misses but such events might not exist at all and certainly they wouldn't be common.

 

Most species have large enough territories that losing even 100% of the population in an area due to freezing is no problem and it can simply be recolonized over time. But if there is a change among the off spring of survivors then the local population will rebound and introduce the new characteristic among others of the species along the periphery of the territory.

 

I suppose part of what I'm suggesting here is that the genetic composition of the individual is far more complex than generally believed. All behavior and all structure of an individual is dependent on genetic information. Each individual is wholly and utterly unique and "fitness" is in no real sense beneficial to survival except in relatively stable biological niches and "populations". Stable niches do not spawn much change in species so "fitness" isn't relevant to evolution. Rather what changes species are events that merely seem to be "random" from our perspective but are actually highly selective of specific genes and the expression of those genes.

 

Resultantly, the claim that differences in fitness driving evolution is "contradictory to observation" is comprehensively wrong and trivially refuted by observation (see previous links to observational data) . I don't really understand how you can continue to make that argument and if you intend to do so, I'd really like to see the contradictory observations you keep alluding to, rather than continued speculation.

 

I'm sure you have me at a decided disadvantage here since my knowledge on such subjects is not extensive. The fossil record shows some species undergoing minor changes over very long periods and others that show rather large changes over shorter periods. But in all cases, even where there is significant sample sizes, there appear to be rather sudden changes. ie- there are "missing links' in all species. Horses show a relatively smooth development but certainly not man or giraffes. "Natural selection" or whatever name one chooses to call it can't seem to account for such changes except by suggesting mutation. Logically this doesn't seem to make sense. Why would a long necked giraffe just happen to be born at a time when the trait was required for the species to eat higher leaves? This sounds like the hand of God rather than logic.

 

Some of the things I've observed concerning change in short lived species are not easily explained so I hesitate to use them as evidence but one thing seems pretty consistent; they revert back to "normal" if left alone for a few generations. This is because landing on the tops of things is the best way nature has found for houseflies to be. The "fittest" housefly is a housefly. When the new species came to be it intermingled with the old and was mostly lost. The genes are still there but the descendents behave normally.

 

I'm suggesting that there was an event that caused giraffes with genes that support shorter necks to die. I don't believe this has to be anything like what we imagine it to be or what would "make sense" to us. Perhaps something occurred that greatly favored individuals with the greatest difference in the size of front and back legs. Perhaps the same genes that express this large difference also creates the structure of the neck. The individuals that survived this event all looked like the normal "proto-giraffe" but their off spring were giraffes. There was no missing link so no missing links can ever be found.

 

Perhaps it was merely some sort of hoof fungus that created the giraffe. The number of possibilities is endless.

 

Look at the domestication of dogs and other animals. These were all apparently very sudden transformations caused by intentionally selecting for characteristics. Nature does the same thing in essentially the same way in population bottlenecks. Rather than selecting specific characteristics, nature merely kills off all individuals without those characteristics. Nature seems to act randomly but actually is just using very subtle selection processes. All individuals of a species occupy the same niche and all are equally well adapted but when the niche changes then new characteristics are favored. These changes can be short term or long. Most are probably very short term events.

[John Cuthber]

I just can't seem to make this point.

 

It seems highly presumptuous to describe the "average rabbit" that comprises a population when we don't fully understand even one rabbit. "Rabbit" is a construct and a tool (a word) for communication rather than an actual physical reality. "Population" is a construct as well. It is comprised of a number of average rabbits. We then assume that these fall on a bell curve that reflects their ability to survive "natural selection" that occurs in various ways that favor the healthy. This seems to fit our observations because we sometimes see a rabbit and her "bunny" escape a bobcat or many rabbits in a population not sicken and die in a plague. But it simply can't be shown in any of these cases that the survivors were IN ANY WAY more "fit" than those that died. "Evolutionary theory" is simply based omn a long series of assumptions that can't be shown experimentally. Rather it just stands to reason that some individuals are more adept at the things required to survive and that anything that kills most of a population must be "robust". The facts simply appear to say these "obvious" assumptions are wrong. That they are wrong is why there are missing links and why cheetahs can still outrun all rabbits even after millions of years of evolution.

...

 

 

"But it simply can't be shown in any of these cases that the survivors were IN ANY WAY more "fit" than those that died. "

How do you define "fit"?

In many cases it's luck, but on the average, it's fitness- by definition of fitness.

On the whole; survivors survive.

It's not even an axiom- it's true by tautology.

[Ten oz]

You're on the right track here.

 

"Fittest" is exactly the best suited to the enviroment but when the enviroment is stable, the total number of individuals will be stable as well. Being fit means a somewhat increased chance of passing on genes in a somewhat stable number of individuals.

I had planned to sit this one out but then you went and made me give MigL a plus one which truly pains me to do. In stable group there will not be ongoing adaptation. Speciation requires a reduced gene flow.

"Speciation requires selective mating, which result in a reduced gene flow. Selective mating can be the result of 1. Geographic isolation, 2. Behavioural isolation, or 3. Temporal isolation."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

 

 

But by defintion most individuals will die during population declines (all else being equal and assuming some volatility in populations). Population declines are by definition caused by changes in the enviroment so the definition of the most "fit" changes to suit the new conditions. Certainly species lower on the food chain can have more variable numbers of individuals caused by any number of factors and these can be rather gross like increased predation or decreased food supplies. But among the life forms that are higher up and even the lowest species many of the factors that cause suddden and severe population changes are really very subtle. If a species of wasp lays eggs late in the season but there is an early freeze the egg laying adults can be almost all be killed resulting in a virtual extinction of the species (at least locally). But if there are a few survivors these individuals can and will often share some insignificant characteristic. Perhaps the freeze didn't affect patches of ground that was in the sunlight all day or patches under willow trees. Any wasps that happened to overnight in one of these areas survived where the others did not. My contention is that these individuals that camped out in distinct places did so because of their genes in some, many, or all cases. The degree to which their genes led to their survival defines how much different their off spring are when they mate.

The overwhelming majority of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Extinction is significantly more common than successful adaptation to a changing environment. I know for many people when they imagine extinctions of the past it is often in form of a meteor strike that kills all life over night but that isn't the case. There have been several mass extinctions throughout earths history and each one takes tens and hundreds of thousands of years to run their course. Even with hundreds of thousands of years to adapt most species simply go extinct. It is not single winters freeze that would cause wasps adaptation.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

 

 

I'm sure you have me at a decided disadvantage here since my knowledge on such subjects is not extensive. The fossil record shows some species undergoing minor changes over very long periods and others that show rather large changes over shorter periods. But in all cases, even where there is significant sample sizes, there appear to be rather sudden changes. ie- there are "missing links' in all species. Horses show a relatively smooth development but certainly not man or giraffes. "Natural selection" or whatever name one chooses to call it can't seem to account for such changes except by suggesting mutation. Logically this doesn't seem to make sense. Why would a long necked giraffe just happen to be born at a time when the trait was required for the species to eat higher leaves? This sounds like the hand of God rather than logic.

Mutation happen often. Most times mutations are not embraced. Take ectrodactyly, more commonly called lobster hands. Most famously Grady Stiles was a sixth generation ectrodactyly. No missing link. No slow change from a normal hand to a cleft hand. If that trait was a desired one it could easily spread. Rather it is undesirable and stay confined to small family pockets.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectrodactyly

 

Where as Blue eyes was a desired mutation. again, no slow progression. Some baby was born with a mutation and everyone thought it was assume so that mutation was bred into the population. Today blue eyes seem like a standard human trait.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

 

Change can be fast or it can be slow. No god, aliens, or other designer required.

[cladking]

"But it simply can't be shown in any of these cases that the survivors were IN ANY WAY more "fit" than those that died. "

How do you define "fit"?

In many cases it's luck, but on the average, it's fitness- by definition of fitness.

 

 

I suppose that if you define "fit" as the natural characteristics that allow an individual increased probability of having more off-spring then even "evolution" is a virtual tautology. The problem is the reality is hiding behind the terms.

 

Even identical twins are essentially different in all possible ways. If they both have green flecks in their eyes then maps of these flecks will not coincide. One will have a stray brown fleck and the other blue flecks. I'm simply saying that the "fitness" of these two individuals will vary greatly in many extinction events due to the very subtle nature of these events.