Evolution and Increased Diversity

RADZ, you may be right about the "theory" of evolution, but the practicality of it seems to be contradicted by John Sepkoski's "death graph" of marine families, redrawn below from S. J. Gould's The Book of Life (2001, p. 107): At a macroscopic level Sepkoski's graph shows six global mass extinctions of marine life in terms of families. Since the Permian extinction there appears to have been a 'punctuated" increase of diversity at a rate of about 3 families per Myr.Why isn't this evidence of a naural increase in biodiversity?”HM

I already said in Message 14: My point is relevant to the OP definition of diversity: So what's the problem?And could you put some meaning behind these words? Correlation with what? This is not a statistical graph. And who said anything about causation? Growth of biodiversity was unabated by the worst of mass extinctions. No, the TOE does not predict this. But some refinement of the TOE ought to.”HM

I'll be very interested in seeing any other ad hoc results of biological evolution. Do you know of any? Don't know what you are saying here. If we look at marine families there an unmistakable trend toward evolvolving diversity, unless you know of another way diversity happens. How do you know? What is there about the TOE that supports your assertion that a macroscopic trend toward greater diversity would not happen on another habitable planet?I agree with you that evolution does not necessarily lead to diversity on a shorter timescale. A lot depends on how we measure diversity. But if we measure it using fossil records of marine familiies there is no doubt that diversity growth has been irrepressible on the largest timescale here on Earth. From Sepkoski's graph one might conclude that, on a broad timescale, mass extinctions were boons to biodiversity.”HM

RAZD, you said in Message 17: I asked if you knew of any other ad hoc results, meaning ad hoc results for planets other than Earth. You seem to be quite ready to assume, without any evidence whatsoever, that ET life exists, but you also assume that it wouldn't diversify in a way similar to Earth's life. I don't see how you can justify these combined assumptions. For the only kind of life we know of”Earth life”Sepkoski's graph makes it clear that historical diversity, measured in marine families, ultimately recovered from mass extinctions to exceed prior diversity levels.And your ad hoc argument is not too strong. Aren't all environmental changes ad hoc with respect to how biological evolution works?I my mind, to validate your argument you would need to show that the diversification of marine life was not associated with biological evolution. No so easy to do.”HM

It's the "ad hoc" part I don't get. The Oxford Dictionary defines "ad hoc" as: "formed, arranged, or done for a particular purpose only". I don't think you mean to say that butterfly wings were formed for "a particular purpose." Do you?Again, from your OP: Well, yes, I do think you are missing something, and I don't care what the creationists think they see. My point is that we have empirical evidence of life diversifying on a macroscopic scale, and doing so irrepressibly, even after mass extinctions. Why shouldn't we expect the TOE to account for this? You're right; it doesn't. But given what Sepkoski has shown (see Message 14), why shouldn't there be "a law of macro-diversity"?”HM

This would seem to be oriented toward "carrying capacity" for biodiversity, which I can agree to. Maybe all we need in a "law of macro diversity" is already accounted for by ecological theory. Yes, if niche/hab controls macro diversity. But (speculatively) if genes can be attributed to modifying habitats for increasing biodiversity, then maybe I can assume that macro diversity is at least partly driven my genetic variation. No?”HM

But isn't evolution itself associated with changes in the environment? And wouldn't you agree that diversity is a consequence of evolution? Yes, of course it can. But how then would you account for the macroscopic increase in biodiversity, per Sepkoski's graph? If you say it may be a peculiar to Earth but not necessarily the case elsewhere, then I say show me some of that "elsewhere" data.”HM

Yes, that's a loose statement. It takes the extremely selfish-gene position. Would it be more reasonable to say that phenotypes of some organisms are capable of modifying habitates? I'm thinking of plaque production by oral bacteria, or of beaver dams. OK. Maybe a "punctuated" increase of three families of marine life per million years since the Permian Extinction is of no particular importance to the concept of increasing diversity. Or maybe it is. It must seem more special and important to me than it does to you.”HM

RAZD, I knew you didn't mean to imply purpose. Since the term ad hoc applies mostly to human affairs I have avoided using it in an ecological or evolutionary context. Didn't want to appear teleological, you know.”HM

Genetic drift is usually caused by environmental factors that reduce population size. No? Sexual selection could be the result of climate change or predation. No? Any particular reason why other than speculative faith?”HM

Catholic, take another look at Sepkoski's graph in Message 14? Yes, on a relatively short-term basis evolution can lead to decreasing diversity, which is shown in Sepkosky's graph, but on a long-term basis it clearly has increased. What data do you have to show that would contradict this?”HM

Catholic, would the theory of the expanding universe qualify as Post Hoc ergo propter hoc because it is a fallacy "...committed whenever one reasons to a causal conclusion based solely on the supposed cause preceding its "effect""?”HM

But you brought it up, and now you're taking the OT dodge instead of defending it. Aren't there some Latin words that describe that maneuver? Maybe: Post ego fumo nonblowum procto?”HM

I was talking about evidence, hard evidence, that biodiversity increases over macroscopic timeframes. And I produced the evidence. That part of evolution is not included in the ToE, and I took the position that it should be. No need to start in with the insults. Just show me some evidence that biodiversy on Earth did not increase over macro timeframes.”HM

Could you define what you measn by "after evolution." Was there ever a time on Earth that occurred "after evolution"? What else besides biological evolution, which necessarily involves the environment, could account for biodiversity? Don't understand, RADZ. Are you saying that biodiversity has not occurred on Mars because there was never any life there? I'd have to agree to that! The only thing I can gather from what you are saying is that life alone does not account biological evolution. Well, I can agree to that, because life doesn't exist in a vaccuum.”HM