Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE" - Critique
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 16 of 37 (255248)
10-27-2005 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by NosyNed
10-27-2005 11:31 PM


Re: One for the Mountain of Evidence as well ...
The question seems to me to be, can differences in mutations (as differences in proteins) show directions independent of larger brush strokes that benefit larger aggregates of bag carrying protein shakers?
Does the mountain change or is it just that the beneficial lines as descibed above, narrowly correlate, with, atomic position differences not coincidentally or does the lack of benefits simply indicate failure to have moved in the "fit" direction previously?
Will opened up his talk
http://EvC Forum: Prof Denies Human Free Will -->EvC Forum: Prof Denies Human Free Will
by showing how Darwin tried to engage Asa Gray's idea of biological change to show creationists of his day contra Asa that that idea would not work. In effect Darwin ended up advertising creationism which worked against his intent. Provine said that Darwin cleared up this discrepency in a later book indicating that there were NO "beneficial lines", attributing that to Gray. I suspect the creationist attention to beneficial "mutations" is but a continuation of this incident in history.
It is meanwhile obvious to me that Will did not see analytically how differences in protein answers to adaptive questions may create STRAIGHT lines that might be beneficial in the sense debated by Gray and Darwin figuratively. We have so many more resources today this that I can't believe it cant be done. So even after seeing that notion by Dawkins you referred to, it does exist, that the mountain changes shape etc., we still need to know if this is inside the flesh or in the environment determinately (and not simply the Red Queen writ large). Adaptation is pretty much a death ticket over evolutionary time but if the geneotype can be straightened out with benefits supplied by changes internal that like Lotka-Volterra equations do for populations, and so stay in sync, with alterations in terrain (literally) I cant agree that this is only a rehtorical difference.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-27-2005 11:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 10-27-2005 11:31 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by mick, posted 11-04-2005 6:00 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 17 of 37 (255251)
10-28-2005 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Cal
10-27-2005 12:53 PM


To add to your response to the eye comment, I would add this:
Fitness is relative to environment, and environments change, especially when organisms relocate voluntarily. For a cave fish in a truly light-free environment, eyes are at best a neutrally selected trait. Indeed, one might even discover that they are a waste of nutrients and, as a weak point in the skin, a needless source of injury and infection without the sight benefits that previously compensated for those drawbacks. Thus, if one is to maintain the "Mount Improbable" analogy, we must postulate that somehow this population has found itself on a different peak but still headed upward. The goalposts have shifted, so to speak, and the selective pressures will push the isolated fish toward that new summit. Just like the Earth itself, Mount Improbable is subject to upheaval, destruction and building.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Cal, posted 10-27-2005 12:53 PM Cal has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 18 of 37 (255268)
10-28-2005 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu
10-27-2005 2:32 AM


The others have dealt well and in depth with the rest of your critique, I just wanted to comment on this point:
Wherefore "Punctuated Equilibrium"? Why was this absurd contradiction to Darwin and Dawkins proposed?
Given that Dawkins has long been an opponent of Punctuated Equilibrium, how is it a criticism of his work that he does not support it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu, posted 10-27-2005 2:32 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2005 6:28 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 19 of 37 (255271)
10-28-2005 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dr Jack
10-28-2005 5:13 AM


That's wrong. Dawkins isn't an oppoennt of PE, he just thinks that its not a very original or important idea. And - as Dawkins points out - it's not at all against Darwin's actual ideas.
The author of this so-called "critique" clearly has no understanding of Dawkins views on PE, despite the fact that they are spelled out in THe Blind Watchmaker which he has also attempted to "critique".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dr Jack, posted 10-28-2005 5:13 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by halucigenia, posted 10-28-2005 7:02 AM PaulK has not replied

  
halucigenia
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 37 (255276)
10-28-2005 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
10-28-2005 6:28 AM


Dawkins not opposing PE
That's wrong. Dawkins isn't an oppoennt of PE, he just thinks that its not a very original or important idea. And - as Dawkins points out - it's not at all against Darwin's actual ideas.
I agree, though I can't exactly recall what Dawkins wrote about it in The Blind Watchmaker.
My understanding is that Dawkins would think that you might as well call it Punctuated Gradualism, as there is no difference in the mechanism of evolution in PE, just that there are periods of stasis in between the periods of active gradualistic evolution.
In the fossil record it may be apparent that there were periods of rapid, geological time scale, evolution but no Evo inc. Darwin would suggest that evolution runs at the same rate all the time.
What I think is in dispute is if there is any mechanism to this stasis, or whether it is just lack of active evolution.
The mechanism of Habitat Tracking has been proposed to support PE as an active mechanism for stasis, though IMO this does not make any case for PE being proposed by Creos as in any way refuting evolution or the interpretation of the fossil record against evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2005 6:28 AM PaulK has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 37 (255281)
10-28-2005 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by NosyNed
10-27-2005 11:31 PM


Re: One for the Mountain of Evidence as well ...
Dawkins is saying: You can not "assault" the mountain; the only way is to climb it. It isn't "must" climb but "must climb instead of assualt".
But.
There is no "imperative" to do anything, no climbing is required. Species can and do perish on the hillsides because they don't have to climb.
Those that do climb above the others survive to be challenged by the next level.
Where again, there is no "imperative" to do anything, no climbing is required. Species can and do perish on the hillsides because they don't have to climb.
In the end the mountain is climbed, but it was not intentionally climbed. But because a "world wide flood" of natural selection forces survivors higher at every level or they perish.
What is missed as this analogy becomes more complex (and I think Dawkins brings this up--- I'll see if I can find it) is that the form of the mountain changes with time. What is "up" doesn't stay constant.
All analogies have their limits. This mountain analogy is much too rigid eh?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 10-27-2005 11:31 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by happy_atheist, posted 10-29-2005 5:24 PM RAZD has replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4904 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 22 of 37 (255509)
10-29-2005 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
10-28-2005 7:26 AM


Re: One for the Mountain of Evidence as well ...
There is no "imperative" to do anything, no climbing is required. Species can and do perish on the hillsides because they don't have to climb.
I think the important point to take from this is that "the only way is up". The species can climb up the hill, but can't climb back down. If it doesn't go up then it falls off.
As has been pointed out, "climbing down" has a strict definition such that losing useless traits is not climbing down, at most it's simply going sideways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2005 7:26 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2005 7:35 PM happy_atheist has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 37 (255688)
10-30-2005 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by happy_atheist
10-29-2005 5:24 PM


Re: One for the Mountain of Evidence as well ...
I think this is where the analogy is the weakest. There is no imperitive for an individual to survive, no force that pushes up the mountain.
As has been pointed out, "climbing down" has a strict definition such that losing useless traits is not climbing down, at most it's simply going sideways.
But useful traits are also lost in some cases. For example we have the "walking stick" bugs that evolve wings, lose wings, and then evolve wings. In each case the bug du jour was fit for its environment.
Each individual of each species is it's own mountain in one interpretation of this analogy - it is the pinnacle of its development.
Using a single peak for all life is fraught with problems.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by happy_atheist, posted 10-29-2005 5:24 PM happy_atheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by happy_atheist, posted 10-31-2005 3:09 PM RAZD has replied

  
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 4904 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 24 of 37 (255818)
10-31-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
10-30-2005 7:35 PM


Re: One for the Mountain of Evidence as well ...
I think this is where the analogy is the weakest.
I guess all anolgies have to break at some point, or they wouldn't be analogies. I think the problem with the analogy is the word "useful". I think it needs to be a little stronger than that. Gaining and losing a trait (even a useful one) may not bring the species into direct competition with the parent species or other extant species. If it's not in direct competition then it's chances of surviving may not go down.
Maybe the best way to define climbing down the mountain would be a change that makes the species less likely to survive. I know there are cases (such as sickle cell) where an evolved trait has harmful side effects, but those cases also have positive effects that outweight this. I assume that there are no cases of 'adaptations' that have only detrimental effects however?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 10-30-2005 7:35 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Chiroptera, posted 10-31-2005 3:13 PM happy_atheist has not replied
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2005 6:38 PM happy_atheist has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 37 (255820)
10-31-2005 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by happy_atheist
10-31-2005 3:09 PM


Re: One for the Mountain of Evidence as well ...
quote:
I assume that there are no cases of 'adaptations' that have only detrimental effects however?
That would be precluded by natural selection -- it's hard to see how a truly detrimental "adaptation" could become fixed in a population. Perhaps if the detriment isn't overwhelmingly great so the individual could still carry on a mostly normal life, and if the population is pretty small, then there might be a small but nonzero probability that the trait will become fixed in the population through neutral drift.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by happy_atheist, posted 10-31-2005 3:09 PM happy_atheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2005 3:53 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 33 by Cal, posted 11-05-2005 10:33 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 26 of 37 (255824)
10-31-2005 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Chiroptera
10-31-2005 3:13 PM


Re: One for the Mountain of Evidence as well ...
I'd say that purely detrimental effects are excluded as "adaptions" because they are detrimental. More to the point you won't get the cumulative effect of selection building maladaptive systems.
Drift can fix detrimental mutatiosn although only very mildly detrimental mutations are likely to become ficed in that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Chiroptera, posted 10-31-2005 3:13 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 37 (255866)
10-31-2005 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by happy_atheist
10-31-2005 3:09 PM


Re: One for the Mountain of Evidence as well ...
To more closely represent actual conditions, imh(sa)o, you would have to have something to represent natural selection, leaving the mountain to represent accumulated changes. That is why I added a "world wide floor of NS" to the model previously. This can be seen as a rising level, and anything that does not stay above the flood dies. Then you have to add earthquakes to change the environment that NS is selecting fitness for the organisms (so that {wings\no-wings\wings} can be possible. When you have done this, there is no need for a mountain or a rising flood, just land above flood level, land that is changing. Musical chairs.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by happy_atheist, posted 10-31-2005 3:09 PM happy_atheist has not replied

  
today9823 
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 37 (256697)
11-04-2005 3:59 AM


creation power of prayer and voice

Off Topic. Do not reply to this post.

the science of the heavenly places is that we come together and celebrate!
Love RIchard
ps we need God to teach new creative abilities maybe wings like an angel to soar where we desire
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 11-04-2005 08:46 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ohnhai, posted 11-04-2005 4:08 AM today9823 has not replied
 Message 30 by AdminNosy, posted 11-04-2005 9:33 AM today9823 has not replied

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 29 of 37 (256699)
11-04-2005 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by today9823
11-04-2005 3:59 AM


Re: creation power of prayer and voice
ps we need God to teach new creative abilities maybe wings like an angel to soar where we desire
you not seen those things we like to call aircraft?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by today9823, posted 11-04-2005 3:59 AM today9823 has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 30 of 37 (256745)
11-04-2005 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by today9823
11-04-2005 3:59 AM


Welcome Neighbor
Welcome to EvC Today (if I may call you that instead of Mr 9823.
There are some links in my signiture that might help you out.
Peruse all the threads and post where you have comments and questions please.
However, there is one little nit about this post: we're a wee bit fussy about people attempting to stay on topic. Now, none of us are very good at it but we try. Your post doesn't seem to be much to do with this one.
PS Drop by Bean Bros. in Kerrisdale and I'll buy the coffee.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-04-2005 09:34 AM

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by today9823, posted 11-04-2005 3:59 AM today9823 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024