Criticizing neo-Darwinism

Do you have any evidence that non-functional or detrimental intermediates are the standard pathway in neo-darwinian 'accounts'?TTFN,WK

An alternative theory to how neo-Darwinism is seen by non-biologists? What would that be like and why would you want it?Is your issue with neo-darwinism or how it is seen? All you seem to have done in this thread is re-iterate the usual ID/creationist canards, i.e. intermediates must be detrimental and that you are somehow magically gifted with being able to exactly calculate the precise probability of a trait arising and know when it is too improbable to be realistically considered.If you insist that strict neo-darwinism in the terms of the models formulated by Fisher, Haldane and Wright or simple derivatives of those models must explain the evolutionary history of life on earth then no biologist in his right mind is going to claim that that is the case. Neo-darwinism can model a process of evolution and make predictions in line with that model, it has never claimed to be able to model or explain the entire evolutionary history of life on earth.But to leap from that to somehow taking as a priori givens some highly contentious assumptions is another thing entirely. One is a reasonable acknowledgements of the limitations of a specific set of models, the other is a set of straw men that suggest that you spend more time reading criticisms of evolution than you do reading about evolutionary biology. Perhaps if you plan to come up with an alternative you should spend some more time familiarising yourself with what it is you are developing an alternative to.TTFN,WK

You may not believe them but I am sure you said them. You have clearly stated your problems with detrimental intermediates... Which incorporates within itself your own assessments of probabilities .You specifically mentioned Waddingtons 'strict' sense of neo-Darwinism and its ineffectiveness as an explanation for the evolution of life on Earth but the only specific criticisms you have used, and which you have not felt any need to support with evidence, have been the standard ID canards.You seem to have taken on Syamsu's mantle of trying to reinvent the wheel simply to make it more palatable for those who can't be bothered to actually find out what the current state of evolutionary biology is actually like. What should neo-Darwinism rely on the understanding of evolutionary psychologists? Should I take a quick survey of the opinions of pastry chefs at the same time? Now that sounds more like an ad hominem, don't address my criticisms but instead claim that my raising them somehow suggests I have a dogmatic set of views protected against criticism.Have you considered that the degree of protection from criticism is not conferred by an ironclad shell of dogma but because the specific criticisms with which you are trying to broach them are the equivalent of a couple of stale twinkies.TTFN,WK

That was Behe's original version, and the one that most closely approaches a useful definiton. There is nothing in that definition that seems to pose a problem for neo-Darwinism, what is there that you consider problematic?TTFN,WK

Then contextualise it for us. You make a relatively specific claim and then say that we are taking you out of context when we ask for any basis for this claim rather than essentially personal incredulity, either your own or Michael Behe's if you prefer.Presumably we continue to take it out of context when you restate it practically verbatim in message 11 ... but for some reason you don't seem to feel there is any merit in actually finding out if you are right or not.TTFN,WK

If you think about Sewall Wright's conceptualisation of the fitness landscape it is clear that neo-darwinism can easily acept changes in niches. In a limited system, such as a predator prey interaction, it might even be able to predict such changes and their repercussions.Given a specific set of rules for 'hill - climbing' behaviour, which is essentially what models of selective factors are, on a fitness landscape then any change in the environment can be modelled by a change in that landscape and the subsequent modelling of the evolution will merely follow the 'hill - climbing' rules once again.Of course you can't do this first unless you know exactly what the resultant selective pressures of your change are going to be.Considering fitness landscapes might also obviate deviation into considerations of ID arguments based on IC.As I see it your objection is essentially the issue of how a species, or a population, can move from one adaptive peak in a fitness landscape to another without passing 'downards' through an adaptive trough? Do you think that your objection could be characterised in this way?TTFN,WK

You seem to have suddenly decided to discuss a completely different topic entirely.As PaulK so cogently points out, if the only change that is going on is in the location of the deer then there is no evolution going on. If you want to model the genetic changes in respose to differing selective pressures on the deer population as they migrate then you can do that as I described previously.As the geography and local environment contain many factors which will affect selection there must be some clear mappings between features of a true local landscape and environment with those of the fitness landscape. Your proposal seems to be that the deer are moving over the actual landscape in such a way as to maintain the same position in the fitness landscape as they currently hold.You seem to want neo-darwinism to do much more than it has ever claimed to be able to. In fact you seem more to want some sort of grand unified theory of biology.TTFN,WK*edited to change environment to landscape sice I am talking about fitness landscapes, I think I automatically changed it to evironment while typing due to some ingrained reluctance to use the word twice in the one sentence.*This message has been edited by Wounded King, 29-Mar-2006 01:55 PM

\Eh?There is no change in the genetics of the population, there is no change in the morphology of the population, there is no change in the constitution of the population, all there is change in is the location of the population. Why would an evolutionary model be expected to predict this? You seem to have a radically new interpretation of the very concept of evolution, you are asking why neo-darwinism can't predict something no one except you seems to think it should. Where is there any fudge factor? Have you considered that the limitations may not be in the theory but in our ability to apply it. There are extreme problems with trying to estimate or measure the strength of selection of any given variable on any given trait. When you consider the number of traits and variables both independent and interdependent involved in even a very small environmental niche the necessary computations become hugely complex.That the possible resultant predictions are weak is just as likely to be due to an inability to provide exact input values as it is to a weakness in the subsequent processing. But that in itself is in no way evolution. The behavioural mechanisms which lead a population to migrate or seek a comfortable environment may well be evolutionary products whose development can be modelled, but a particular population migrating is not evolution in any sense that I can see, if you think it is then perhaps you can explain that position?TTFN,WK

Actually it doesn't say that. It says that it wasn't niches being emptied of dinosaurs by the K/T extinction which allowed the proliferation of mammalian orders. It doesn't say there were no empty niches which the mammals then filled.TTFN,WK

That is a pretty cool link Martin. I can't for the life of me see how you think it in anyway supports your argument however.While the diversity at the 39-20 MYA is the highest that period is after the K/T extinction and indeed shows the very trend you are denying with all the taxonomic levels showing an increasing trend. While it is true that that period is the highest the next highest is the modern period following a dip in numbers at all taxonomic levels in the intervening periods (Fig.43). As Quetzal pointed out, the two things are totally distinct. The lack of any new order arising has no relevance to whether evolution was ocurring or not. Secondly the source you just provided shows about 10 more orders present in the mid tertiary than in the periods closer to the K/T event. Again this is neither supported by the paper you initially referenced nor in any way suggested by the other research you have brought up.TTFN,WK

Just saying the same thing over and over again isn't an argument. The fact that they don't attribute it to niches being emptied by dinosaurs becoming extinct doesn't mean that the diversification was not into newly available niches.Perhaps it is important to make a distinction between emptied niches, which had previous occupants, and empty niches, newly derived from changes in the environment.The problem is that continental fragmentation and similar events are going to have radical and diverse effects on niche availability which may cover both emptied and empty niches.Of course if you actually addressed the points raised rather than simply saying 'I don't think so' you could help raise the level of debate above that of primary school.TTFN,WK

Care to actually try and make an argument now. Once again you throw a sting of assertions into the mix with nothing to back them up. None of the references you provide mention any 'unknown internal forces', instead they posit changes in the Earth's geography such as continental fragmentation as key elements.So in what way does this mean that there were no newly available niches. No it doesn't, it just means that you still don't understand how taxonomic classification works. Can you present any reason why we should expect a steady rate of new order production? Or give any instance where it has been claimed that we should? Indeed not, but that is irrelevant. The paper doesn't say that mammals did not fill niches emptied by dinosaurs. It says that it was not radiation to fill such niches that coincided with the origins of most orders of mammals. You should really try reading and understanding these papers rather than skimming them and twisting them to fit your preconcieved notions. Time and time again you put up some prefectly good piece of work and drastically misrepresent its conclusions and implications. How many times does this need to be brought to your attention before you make thoroughly reading and understanding the papers your first step? Indeed, and one consistent with known facts. Since it seems to be your belief that they are the result of 'unknown internal forces' why don't you try and find some evidence or some method of discerning their exstence?TTFN,WK

My Dearest Elmer,No, don't turn away my pet. I know there have been harsh words between us but your latest missal touched my heart! Please don't ignore my words, surely you could not be so hard hearted?ahhem... Well he probably failed to mention them because A) There isn't a shred of evidence for 'organism-directed' genetic information change, unless you mean modern genetic engineering. B) The existence of non-random mutations, to whatever extent, doesn't affect the fact that heriditary infromation does change randomly.In fact the extent of observed 'non-random' phenomena are merely a variety of factors which change the probability of mutation in general or particular types of mutation based on a wide variety of both environmental and genetic factors, i.e. specific sequences can be predisposed to particular mutation, certain types of mutation are more liable to occur, etc...If you want to make a case for the existence of non-random intentional changes then I'm sure we would all be interested in seeing it. There seems to be a disconnect in what you say here. I don't see how those two have to be identical except to the extent that they have same cause in the form of a random mutation. He suggests that the causes may be identical but not the mutations themselves. For instance the change from a Cytosine to an Adenine might be beneficial in one instance but in another produce a premature stop codon leading to a truncated protein being formed. The causes and types of mutation may be identical but there localisation can have an extreme effect on the result.If you consider any original sequence to some ideal form of old information then I agree that 1 and 3 might be identical, but there is still no contradiction. While you may have lost the information in the original sequence you will have gained the information of the de novo mutation. You may well have no net change in information, depending on how exactly you are measuring the genetic information. There is certainly no contention that less, if there is less, need be more. And if we see this process as it occurs either amongst duplicated genes in a single genome or in the whole set of multiple forms of a gene present in a population we can see that you can have the introduction of the novel mutation into the population without having lost the old information. So while there might be a local loss of that particular genetic form in one individual's genome the genetic information is still extant in the population. Hmm, that seems to be an artefact you yourself have generated. When I look at post #1 what I see parasomnium saying is... So I'm not quite sure how but somewhere in the process you managed to add Para repeating a phrase where he didn't in the original. You also seem to have managed to excise the phrase he did finish that sentence with. So the question here should maybe be 'what gives?'TTFN,WK

It's nice to see there are still some people out there paying attention to John.TTFN,WK

Unfortunately not only is the Uni Prague site in Czech, which I can't read, but it also appears to have removed the page you were linking to.TTFN,WK