Evolution and Increased Diversity

Hi cs;
You say-- By "the" theory of evolution I take you to mean Ronald Fisher's notional amalgam of population statistics, genetic inheritance mechanisms with Darwin's anthropomorphic metaphor for differential mortality, "Natural Selection". Often referred to as 'neo-darwinism, 'darwinism', 'the 'modern synthesis', and 'modern evolutionary biology', when including Sewall Wright's "drift" [i.e, random genetic mutationm without natural selection],theory, [later expanded by Motoo Kimura as "neutral theory"] and sometimes referred to as 'molecular biology' and 'biochemistry'. Am I right?I will suppose that I am, and so I can say that I am familiar with that hypothesis, although I view it as a highly dubious proposition.
Simply put, it asserts, and I refuse to believe, that extremely complex and highly productive self-directed [autopoietic] systems can arise and become reconfigured [evolve over time] via a mindless chain of anomalous but happy accidents, each event relative and dependent upon local circumstances,-- i.e., 'chance'. [qs]

quote:

---

WRT bioforms, 'to adapt' means to dynamically 'make suitable to or consistent with a particular situation or use'. Since that implies teleology,

---

How does that imply teleology?[/quote]Acting with a view to a more or less definite end is what the word 'teleology' means. Anything chance-based, random, stochastic, aimless, undirected, and unintentional is not teleological. And unless a mechanically determined series of events has been intentionally put in motion with a view to a more or less definite end, it is not teleological either.
However, if a mechanically determined process has been put in place with a view to an at least broadly preconceived, more or less intended outcome, then that mechanically determined chain of events is teleological.
OTH, if a series of apparently disconnected and anomalous [i.e., 'random'] events are undertaken with a view to a generally intended outcome, and are directed by a 'value system' derived from that outcome [such as an unspecified, unknown 'best available' solution to a particular 'problem'], then that 'trial-and-error' process is teleological.The difference between a teleological process and any other, therefore, is that all teleological processes are 'value-constrained', BUT, where and when 'value judgement' is not involved in a process, [be it a stochastic/chance-based series of events, or a mechanical/determined chain of causes and effects], that process is ateleological. A 'value-constrained' non-determinist teleological process is 'heuristic', whereas a 'value-free' non-determinist process is 'stochastic'.
Which, BTW, makes any 'adaptationist' theory of evolution, including Darwin's,"NS", into a teleological process, but makes any purely chance-based process, such as Fisher et al's, "Random Genetic Mutation", into an ateleological process. Essentially, 'fisherism' [i.e., 'the modern synthesis'] is a highly successful coup d'etat that changed Darwin's theory of teleological evolution into a 'value-free' theory of ateleological evolution. I apologise. I was being oblique. What I meant was that 'causation' is necessary to any understanding of anything, and that to discuss anything without reference to causation is pretty much a useless waste of time.Later.

Partly. We had a thread on what the definition of “the theory of evolution” was - see The Definition for the Theory of Evolution and the conclusion at Message 158 was: As you can see this includes what you mentioned, but it includes many other theories as well.Another way you can define the “theory of evolution” is that the processes and mechanism of evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - is sufficient to explain the diversity and record of life we see today, in history, in the fossil record and in the genetic evidence.Both of these statements show that the “theory of evolution” includes many parts, parts that individually are susceptible to being falsified and replaced with new parts, and subject to the addition of new parts, new concepts for how evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - occurs, and in some cases with a specific applicability instead of a general applicability. Fortunately nature is not limited by your understanding of, or your familiarity with, all of the processes and mechanisms involved in evolution. Or mine. Where “it” is your understanding of the theory of evolution, rather than reality. If you find the result impossible, then you should consider that what could be a fault is your understanding of evolution and not what evolution really involves. This is true for everyone.Your refusal to believe is just an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy, and there are many things that are hard to fully understand and accept even though they are facts. So we'll use definition #2. So if you assume a teleological process - the purposeful putting in place of a mechanically determined process etc, then you are able to deduct that a purposeful mechanism has been put in place? Isn't that the logical fallacy of begging the question? Sure, when you create a straw man argument based on begging the question. You can prove anything with that kind of argument.What if the process evolves by chance: is it still teleological?Then if we test for evidence of a “more or less intended outcome” - by looking, not at the overall trends, but at the whole process that sometimes goes one way and sometimes goes another way, and sometimes result in one direction and sometimes goes in another - and it doesn't show any evidence of direction or purpose, can we assume that there is a direction, a purpose?If both are true - and they are - don't they necessarily and totally invalidate your point, your assumption, your view based on your understanding of evolution? Doesn't this invalidate your understanding of evolution? Except where causation is erroneously assumed. That too is a waste of time.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

Yeah, I'm pretty much with you on all of this.

I gotta tell ya, Razd. I love that sentence.

Hi Elmer,I put my replies to both of your previous messages into this one big message. Its kinda long, sorry. If I roll 100 dice and keep all the 1’s, remove all dice with 6’s, and re-roll all the other dice over and over again, eventually I will have a table with some amount of dice that all have 1’s on them.This is a decent analogy to evolving although it is limited.RM is the rolling of the dice. NS is the “rules”, which are keep 1’s, remove 6’s and re-roll all others. A number on the dice is a genetic trait that can be selected for or against. In this case, 1’s are selected for and 6’s are selected against, while all the other numbers are left to “reproduce” by the rolling again, which is like another generation. As the 1’s are selected for, each subsequent generation (group of dice) will have that number (gene). As the 6’s are selected against, no subsequent generation will have that gene, and if it comes up, it will be removed again.Now, those “rules” are subject to change at the whim of the environment, (so, I as in me, am representing the environment by supplying the rules).If someone later approaches the table, they will see that all the dice are 1’sAn IDist might conclude that a creator placed all the dice on the table as 1’s. It certainly looks that way. But that is not how it happened.The actual rolling of the dice, RM, is not what “caused” the table to be filled with 1’s, although it did provide the opportunity for a 1 to come up in the first place. It was the “selective factor”, the rules, which is what caused the dice to all be 1’s.An IDist might argue that it took me, an intelligent agent, to get the “rules”, but we can get those rules from nature without the need of a designer. If its cold and only the hairiest offspring survive, then we will see the population become hairier. We don’t need a designer to make it colder. It just happens.Now, lets suppose the environment (me) changes sometime before we roll all the dice, and thus the “rules” change. Now we are keeping both 1’s and 2’s.After a few more rolls we will have both 1’s and 2’s on the table. This is analogous to an increase in biodiversity. The RM didn’t cause the increase, although it is still providing the opportunity, it was the selective factor from the environment that allowed for the change in biodiversity.Does that make sense? If the environment is able to support more species and provide more niches for them, then we would expect, as more and more mutations arise, that more and more traits will be selected for and bidiversity will increase. It all depends on the environment, or some other selective factor, which could be sexual selection. Also, a lack of a factor, such as genetic drift, can lead to diversification in a neutral environment. Why not? Is it possible that it is by some reason that you simply do not know? I don’t think the mutation is the “cause”. It just provides the “opportunity”. Not really to me. Does the Lord of the Rings imply that in times of need, different people can get a long and work together for a common goal? We don’t need to believe that the Lord of the Rings really happened to discuss the implication of it. So, what would be pointless and silly, would be for someone to go to a thread discussing that and ask posters to prove that the Lord of the Rings really happened.If you found their discussion pointless without the proof, then you might as well just not reply. In the same way we can talk about the Lord of the Rings without actually believing in the stories. I see RAZD exposed the problems with this analogy so I won’t repeat that. But also, NS is not the entire theory it is just a part of it. So you’re sorta right that its not really a theory. A selective force is something that promotes or rejects some genotype through some property of the phenotype. As genotypes change or get added too, through random mutation, the properties of the phenotype do too, and if something in the phenotype is advantageous, it will be selected for and passed on through generations. One bioform can lead to another, while the original remains. Therefore we can have two where we once had one, thus and increase. You can read up on speciation here. Pretty much everything I’ve typed has come from my understanding of the ToE. Why can’t we discuss it under the assumption that is true? And then discuss the implications of that assumption?For example, the question could be:If the Theory of Evolution were true, would it necessarily lead to an increase in biodiversity?That is the topic. Why does a single individual not affect the sum? Maybe we are defining biodiversity differently. I take it to mean, like the OP, the number of species present. If you’re defining it differently then you need to adjust your definition to the one assumed in the OP. But NS is not predetermined. It depends on the environment, which is fairly chaotic. I asked how that imples teleology and you replied: As the environment, which is aimless, undirected and unintentional, is the source of the selective factors then NS is not teleological. Also, it is not a mechanically determined series of events that has been intentionally put in motion with a view to a more or less definite end.At least, the ToE does not describe it as such.What makes you think that it is, in fact, teleological? Isn’t that a tautology?BTW, how do you determine if a process “has been put in place with a view to an at least broadly preconceived, more or less intended outcome”?If you looked at my table of dice in the above analogy, wouldn’t you conclude that they have has been put in place with a view to an at least broadly preconceived, more or less intended outcome? But was the outcome of my dice game analogy predetermined? At any one time in the game, the number of 1’s on the table has not been predetermined. If we repeat the game, we will follow a different path to the outcome. What if the “rules” were picked out of a hat rather then just determined by me?Can’t you see how things might seem that way when they have not been? Especially when looking at them “after the fact”? Wow. Your tone really changed. Are you trying to impress me with big words? Wow, there are such better ways to word that, no offense.In my dice game above, does the table become filled with 1’s by chance? Of course not. Chance was there to get any 1 in the fist place, but with the “rules” present, it is no longer a game of chance.It wasn’t by chance that the giraffe’s neck got longer, all the ones with the shorter necks couldn’t compete. We would expect that neck length would vary among individuals, and a selective factor is present (a need for a long neck), so why wouldn’t they evolve?Was it an “accident” that a 1 was rolled? No, dice get rolled and give a number, that’s what they do. Similarly, species reproduce imperfectly, that’s what they do. Evolution doesn’t have a generally intended outcome, and natural selection is not directed from a value system.So, sure, you can type up some big impressive words to describe evolution and appear intelligent (which I don’t doubt that you are), but it still seems that you have some misunderstandings of the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution.In the future, lets drop the “smart” tone and go back to the previous one. Then it will be easier for us to communicate and perhaps we can iron out some of the wrinkles in you understanding of evolution. Okay?.Of course, this part .

quote:

---

Simply put, it asserts, and I refuse to believe, that

---

. makes me a little weary about clearing up your misconceptions. Are you really going to refuse to believe something because of your preconceptions and presumptions? Have you ever heard the term Willful Ignorance? But not all ”value-constrained’ processes are teleological, right? Not all heuristic process are teleological either, right?
So, given a value constrained, heuristic process, how do we determine if it is teleological or not? I’m not convinced that NS is teleological. I think I’ve explained how it isn’t in my dice game analogy. Can you explain, preferably in your first tone, how NS is teleological?

You will not have 1's on them. You somehow forgot to re-roll 1's. 1's are not immortal. They have to produce offsprings. You have to re-roll them, Catholic scientist. More than limited. It is valueless.(It doesn't take into consideration genes pleiotropy and epistatic interactions etc... It doesn't take into consideration many other allele-frequency dependancies). You have to re-roll 1's. If you remove 6's and 1's would have chance to fall 99% after many rollings your generation of dice will die out anyway.111 222 333 444 555 666
111 111 111 111 116
111 111 111 114 16
111 111 111 111 6
.
.
.
1
1
6
end of storyYour dices need to proliferate themselves, you know.
(The same for that curious example of apes writing a Shakespeare's play where Natural selection copy succesfull papers and put them into typewriters again and again. Inventors of this story somehow forgotten sexual proliferation where papers from different typewriters are mixed and crossing-overed together every next generation).

The 1's signify a genotype that has been selected for. Therefore it is passed on to the next generation automatically and does not need to be re-rolled. You're welcome to your opinions. I find value in the analogy. All that is assumed in the premise. If a gene is selected for, it doesn't matter if it is pleiotrophic or if their are epistatic interactions, it is still selected for and passed onto the next generation (the re-rolls). Its a given.Sure, those things might make it harder for a gene to be selected for, but the premise assumes the gene has been selected for so the means doesn't matter. Sure, as all analogies, this one is limited. But I still think it expressing the point I was making. And I still find it useful to help describe some of the fundamentals of evolution.For example, how things can look designed after-the-fact, when they really weren't designed at all.It shows that some processes can produce results that seem to be predetermined (or designed) when they were actually based on a random event with a selective fator. I guess you could throw in a few extra dice every re-roll, but in the end the result will still be the same.

Hi cs;No problem, so long as you can abide the fact that I'll only be able to respond to it one snippet at a time. This analogy of 'natural selection' to a dice game of some kind is a common approach, and so merits analysis. But let us not lose sight of the fact that we are discussing 'natural selection' in terms of biodiversity, i.e., increased or decreased numbers of variants of different bioforms across the entire spetrum of the biosphere, or in any designated portion [ecosystem] in that global biosphere. Therefore any valid analogy between dice and the biodiversity of the globe or of any given ecosystem must be directly related to a comparison of 'biodiversity' to a 'die'.The first thing we notice is the assumption that if biodiversity is analogous to a die, then biodiversity can never increase. Why not? Because with a 'die' what you start out with is a numbered six-sided object, a cube. A cube will always have no more, and no less, than six sides, no matter how much you toss it around. And a die, if it is to remain a die, will always be numbered 1-6. No side will ever turn blank, and no side will ever show a '7' or a '0'. The 'die' [biodiversity] that you end with will be identical to the die you start with--its form will be static once and for always. Therefore, to say that biodiversity is analogous to a 'die' is to say that biodiversity is fixed, static, and unchanging.
That is, is to say that there is no such thing as 'evolution', and that a 'die-like' reality is a strictly biblically literalist creationism. Which flies in the face of the empirical observation that the amount of bioform diversity, both globally and locally, does fluctuate, and does both increase and decrease.
Therefore the analogy of biodiversity to a die used in some sort of iterated 'rolling' process is false and invalid, until such time as such dice turn up that are 5 or 2 or 7 or 10 sided 'non-cubic' objects, and/or the numbers on their sides either disappear or become changed to something other than 1-6 over the course of the 'game'.Now, if you try to claim that biodiversity is not analogous to a single 'die', but rather, to a given quantity of geometrically and numerically identical dice, then I am forced to point out to you that where all members of a given set are identical, [no matter how large or how small the sum of that set's members may be], then there is, by definition, no diversity in that set. So if that set is said to represent 'biodiversity', then biodiversity equals zero. And if that set consists of 1,000 identical dice, or only a single die, or any quantity in between, there will still be, only and always, six-sided cubes with the numbers 1-6 attached to their sides.But you seem to want to relate biodiversity, [as is the common practice among darwinians], not the die or the dice themselves, but rather the numerals, 1-6, afixed to their sides. Leaving aside the issues of analogizing biodiversity,-- that which involves concrete entities [bioforms],-- to that which is immaterial, incorporeal, ideational, and symbolic [numbers], I must point out that a/ subtracting a particular numeral when it does not show face-up is to decrease the diversity showing 'across the board', and so, for that matter' is is the act of 'keeping' only 6's, or any other number. All you do in your analogy is a/ decrease the number of dice in play, and b/, decrease the variation in numerals that 'turn up', until you end with only identical numerals, perhaps only a single die, perhaps 50, no matter, all exhibiting the same identical numeral. In short, your analogy shows that biodiversity can fluctuate, at least among symbolic representations, by means of 'selection', but only in a nagative, subtractive, decreasing sense. That is, no matter how many 1's you subtract, nor how many 6's you keep, your 'biodiversity' will never exceed in quantity the _six_ variables with which you began, but _must_ always end with a decreased number of variables. All the way down to 1 numeral only, which, even if it shows multiple times, is still invariable, and thus the diversity shown is zero.IOW, your 'natural selection' can reduce a given amount of biosiversity all the way to zero, but it can never increase it by so much as a fraction. It was this flaw that, when pointed out to Darwin, sent him back to Lamarck [unacknowledged] for his 'pangenesis' explanation for increased variation and added complexity, i.e., increased biodiversity, among bioforms. And it is what prompted Fisher, Haldane, and Wright to postulate 'random genetic mutation' as the source of _increased_ biodiversity, simply because 'natural selection' could not and did not account for it. Don't you see? You are now attributing increased biodiversity to random [supposedly] genetic mutation, and have entirely dropped 'ns' as the source/origin of novelty, i.e., increased biodiversity. After your 'random genetic mutation' supposedly increases the amount biodiversity present, your 'ns' , [whatever it is supposed to be, empirically-speaking(?!?)], merely limits, constrains, and reduces the amount of biodiversity that persists over time. When you say 'selected for', you do realise that you are in fact saying is, "will not be eliminated by 'natural selection'", don't you? So now you are saying that 'random genetic mutation' is -not- the source of novel variation and increased complexity, i.e., the originating mechanism of increased biodiversity, but rather, that the 'environment is the generator of novelty and diversity. IOW, that dry hot deserts generated camels, and cold frozen oceans generated polar bears, and air generated birds and water generated fish, and so on. Sounds a lot like abiogenesis and 'spontaneous generation', to me.
It also sounds quite magical. I don't think you want to go with that one. Where is the essential difference between Wright's "Drift" and Kimura's "Neutral", I've always wondered? They both seem to state that -increased- biodiversity is solely a result of random genetic mutation, with 'natural selection' the factor necessarily 'lacking', i.e. absent, to the process of 'increase'. No, it is because of what I _do know_ about 'natural selection'. See above. There is nothing that I do not know about it. Without wishing to insult you, anyone who believes that 'natural selection' can increase biodiversity simply does not understand 'natural selection', and/or the concept of biodiversity. Your fellow-darwinians would, I think, disagree with you and say that random chance, i.e., genetic accidents, are the "cause", and that it is the "environment" that "just provides the opportunity". They will tell you that the idea of 'the environment' generating novely [eg., air generating birds,or deserts generating camels, either via morphological or genetic mutation], is 'lamarckian', [even though that is a distorted strawman of actual lamarckian theory]. Aside from the fact that the story is fictional and full of instances of 'magical' causation, as well as empirical cause and effect, we are not able to discuss it without discussing its 'causation', i.e., its author, his mind, his volition, his values, and his creative abilities. To discuss a fantasy novel, or any other literary work, without reference to its source and its intended effect on its readers reduces itself to the meaningless subjective statements of 'taste', i.e., "I did/did not enjoy the story.". An adult seriously discussing such matters needs to justify their value judgements and inferences, and that simply cannot be done with an examination of causation wrt the work itself. Anything less is pointless and childish. And that is why a book report in grade three is so different from a paper written for an under-graduate english lit. course--or at least, why it -should- be different. That makes no sense. The issue was not that there was no 'proof', but that the 'proof' was entirely assumed, taken as a given, unquestioned and accepted as dogma. That being, that RMNS was what increased the amount of biodiversity over time, if and whenever there actually was any such increase. Since the fact that biodiversity has increased on this planet over time cannot be denied by anyone who is not a biblical literalist, the sole and only issue of any consequence is whether or not the supposition that the effect, increased biodiversity, is produced by that supposed cause, 'RMNS' is true and valid. So far, I have shown that "NS" has no contribution to make to
-increased- biodiversity, even though, theoretically, it may be said to account for -decreased- biodiversity. That leaves only "Random Genetic Mutation" to account for increased biodiversity, at least in terms of, 'modern evolutionary biology', current neo-darwinism is commonly designated. And just what can you say about "lord of the Rings" that is at all worth saying [that is, that rises above the level of, "I really liked this part, didn't you!?!"], without a care for causation/explanation, that isn't just an exercise in emotional "bonding" with others of similar 'tastes' to your own?But if that is all the darwinians in this thread wish to do--bond with each other at an emotional level-, then I'll drop out of the discussion, since that is of no interest to me at all, and anything I say would interfere with that purpose, and so get them all angry and upset. That is not my purpose, either.Let me know if you wish me to continue.

Hey Elmer,There are two replies to your post. This one about the dice-stuff and the other one about the non-dice-stuff. I think the other one is more important so skip to that one if you are time constrained. Not necessarily. Each number on a die represents a genotype. Each die is an individual in the population, where the population is all the dice. Biodiversity is the number of different genotypes, or the amount of different numbers (1-6) on the dice. But that is not how the analogy has been defined. Sure, your strawman analogy has been thoroughly refuted.Now, lets move on to my analogy. That’s correct. But in my analogy, before all the dice become number 1’s, I change the “rules”, which corresponds to the environment changing. Therefore, before the biodiversity reaches a value of zero (when all the dice are 1’s), and after the environment changes, we can actually have an increase in biodiversity as we will have both 1’s and 2’s (per the new rule), as well as the other non-6 numbers that have not been re-rolled yet. You don’t need the dice to change to represent a change in biodiversity. The numbers on the dice are the genotypes, so if the number of genotypes changes (for example if it went from eighty 1s, and twenty 3’s to eighty 1’s, ten 2’s and ten 3’s, then the biodiversity has increased from two genotypes to three), then we have had an increase in biodiversity.One of the problems is that you will actually need to throw extra die in on each re-roll so that the population doesn’t dwindle and the analogy does a better job representing reality. The original analogy does need to be changed as exposed by MartinV. Yeah, that’s pretty much what I want. And I would expect that an analogy would require that something has been analogized , I mean, duh. Yes, after a few generations, the biodiversity will decrease per the “rules” of the game. It is after the rules change (ie a change in the environment), that we will see an increase in biodiversity. [this is not to say that and increase in biodiversity requires a change in the environment, that is just the case for this analogy]. Yeah, that was an error (pointed out by MartinV). We will need to add dice back into the poor for the analogy to work more properly. Sorta replenish the pool, if you will. Right, until the rules change and we start keeping both 1’s and 2’s. Then we can have an increase in biodiversity. It helps that we are replacing the removed dice now, so that if the popualtion becomes all 1’s, we can still have the increase. The original idea, was that the rules would be changed before all the dice became 1’s. I don’t think it matters how many variables we began with. Here’s why. After a few re-rolls (generations), we will have mostly 1’s with a few stragglers of the other numbers and no 6’s. Lets say we did not roll any 2’s the last time, so what we have is biodiversity value of four. Four numbers are present, 1,3, 4, and 5. If we change the rules to now keep the 6’s, or the 2’s or whatever and then we re-roll. We could then have five numbers present, which would be an increase in biodiversity. Yeah, I’ve corrected for that, it was an error on my part. “My bad.” But you know, now that I’ve typed all this out, I remember why I don’t like analogies that much. More time is spent explaining the analogy than making the actual point of the analogy.This analogy isn’t working out all that great, we can just drop it if you want. Or if you want to explore it further, I can do that too.As far as the rest of your message, I’ll reply to that in the following post.

Hey alright! A contention! And it is the entire point of the thread. Hot damn!I believe that natural selection, acting on random mutations, can lead to an increase in biodiversity. I don’t have a problem with adjusting/fixing scientific theories, as errors are found, do you?I agree that NS cannot account for it alone. You need the source of the change in the genome in order to get the diversity. RM fits the bill. My position has been the same the whole time. RM provides for the source of the new information needed to allow for a change in the bioforms (what I was calling the “opportunity”), and NS is needed to ”decide’ which changes will be kept and which will be rejected. Neither one of them alone accounts for the increase in biodiversity, they have to work together to get it (except for the rare case of genetic drift, but I doubt that would lead to speciation so we can just forget about it). No, if a trait is advantageous it will become more prominent. It has been selected ”for’. Also, NS can remove all traits that are not the one selected for. Oh wait, is that what you mean? That you can only select ”for’ by removing the ”others’? Here is a link the wiki article on NS. Okay, now I see the angle you are coming from. Okay, okay. I think I see the problem.RM is the “source” of the information that NS selects against. It provides the “opportunity” for an increase in biodiversity. NS is the factor that “decides” which traits are promoted (through the elimination of all others). Neither one of them alone can account for the increase. It is when they are combined that we can see an increase in biodiversity.So basically the question boils down to: How can biodiversity increase when the selective factor can only removing unacceptable traits?You seen to agree that RM can provide the new info to select from, but your contention seems to lie with the idea that by removing traits we can have an increase in them?Let me ask you if that correctly reflects your position before we move forward and I respond to it, okay?

---

---

Holy shit! I guess I’m wasting my time then, huh? For some reason, I doubt it Don’t worry about insulting me, this is the internet. And I’m more than willing to admit that the ToE’s NS is erroneous and cannot account for the increase in biodiversity, but you have not convinced me as such, yet. Isn’t it possible that we (me and my fellow “darwinians” [BTW, what is a ”darwinian’?]) are saying the same thing (that we mean the same thing) but I am just using the terms differently? But that is not what I mean by the environment “causing” it. The cause of the increase in biodiversity is in the selecting of the different mutations. The mutations, themselves, however, are what cause the change in the properties of what is being selected from.You’ve conflated uses of the word “cause”. RM ”causes’ the change in the individual, NS ”causes’ the change in the population. But you can’t change the population with changes in the individuals. So now you’re saying that I’m saying that what changes the population is what changes the individual, but that is not what I am saying. RM is the ”source’ of the information that NS can select from, by the removal of unwanted traits, to provide an increase in biodiversity.How that is possible is what I intend to explain to you. However, I have little time left right now.That is the explanation you’re looking for, right?We will cover that in my next post. Yes, please do.

quote:

---

IOW, your 'natural selection' can reduce a given amount of biosiversity all the way to zero, but it can never increase it by so much as a fraction. It was this flaw that, when pointed out to Darwin, sent him back to Lamarck [unacknowledged] for his 'pangenesis' explanation for increased variation and added complexity, i.e., increased biodiversity, among bioforms. And it is what prompted Fisher, Haldane, and Wright to postulate 'random genetic mutation' as the source of _increased_ biodiversity, simply because 'natural selection' could not and did not account for it.

---

How is one to take this paragraph? Can you tell me where in the literature ( somewhere on the topic of pangenesis ?) is there discussion of this “flaw” and if it really ”sent’ him back to Lamarck.Richard Lewontin insists (I will happlily provide content to this effect if requested) that evolution today is one of a differential relation between organisms and environments so if Darwin in historical time went back to Lamarck then by today’s evo standard he, Darwin was flawed to do so because there is no actual environment in which this happened.Now if one wishes to test or question what is the full differential implied by Lewontin and insist on some monophyly out of the pleunum of biological change then one might find that there was an equilibrium here or there, whatever the supposed litertature you connote denotes. So please it would help if I had some better idea of what you mean here. Is it just generally or is it to mean something like Darwin’s “laws of growth”.As to what prompted FHW to postulate . well I think this thinking was more general - to the difference of Lysenko and Morgan for instance. Indeed my grandfather, a teacher of evolution and holder of PHd in genetics before DNA would insist on something about biodiversity from mutations without knowing the algebra of the holy trinity of evos. Shouldn’t that rather be attributed to De Vries instead?What led them “to postulate” is somewhat complicted. Take Fisher for instance, here on the relation to thermodynamics: (Structure of Evolutionary Theory by SJ GOULD page 512)Now if Gladyshev is correct (I have a copy of this paper here) then this is incorrect as there is supposed by Georgi to be both a within species and a without series law ("Note that each type or species of organism is characterized by its own average life-span value for each respective hierarchy. However, series (5.1), is observed for each species of organism(page 61)).Nowthen, if one replaces “equilirbiurm” with “environment” (if one doesnt then I cant really follow you here as we are left with a standard temperature and pressure environment the skein boundary between ourselves and whatever is outside) then indeed we can see what is leading Gladyshev to postulate the likes of Fisher and this explains how Darwin could get the pangene (regardless of which side of the Chanell ones views our wake from) wrong but I do not see how it is supposed to relate to diversity.This has to be something between the species and the clade.So when you ask what is the difference between Wright drift and Kimura neutural one has to recognize that there are many potential causes of drift that are not simply chance changes of DNA. Small populations sizes for one instance otherwise. Kimura used the situation between Fisher and Wright to argue that biologists were not recognizing the small good enough. If we see that the full differential referred to by Lewontin is actually an issue of equilibrium (a closed vs and open vessel of water etc) and not an individual under Scottish economics vs a peasen in Russia, no matter the science then indeed this difference can can be made clearer.I will show something more along these lines by writing about the Russian
Lomonosov
Mikhail Lomonosov - Wikipedia (becareful with wiki as the actual papers I read, Lomonosov was using phlogistin as extant)
later in the thread on time.
EvC Forum: Is time merely a concept?I think I understand what Darwin was trying to say about increases and this could occur by osscilation (so many wedges into the nair same spot on the surface (across the seasons)) rather than progression (of the Earth around the Sun (Gould always held dear to Darwin's statement that he (DArwin) 'saw no reason for progressive development in life') no matter the rotation but I am not sure what you mean to have had Darwin say.Is is simply a matter of my not reading more of your posts?Edited by Brad McFall, : spelling

Well, forgive the wordplay, but I've been pointedly told that that was not the point of the thread, not even in part, although I've felt all along that it should be the point of the thread; which is why I interjected my comments into the thread, pointing that out. But never mind, let us go forward by assuming that it is now the point of the thread. Yes, I know that. You have always made your beliefs perfectly clear. No, I certainly do not. But it is you, (not I, and not Darwin, nor Fisher, et al), that continues to insist that 'natural selection' can and does increase biodiversity. Which indicates that, as a matter of fact, you do "have a problem with adjusting/fixing scientific theories, as errors are found". That is like saying that a bread truck, [ns], can generate new bakery products, so long as it is coupled to a bakery, [rm]. Nuff said. If you wish to insist that bread trucks play a roll [no pun intended] in the generation of new muffin flavours and pie fillings, there is little left that I can do to disabuse you of that notion. One last try. I think that concede that 'ns', per se, cannot and does not increase biodiversity. However, Wright and Kimura, as well as a number of 'anti-adaptationists', insist that 'rgm', all by itself, without any 'ns' at all, can and does increase biodiversity. You apparently disagree with these people, and so do I, but not at all on the same grounds. The point is, that if 'rgm' can generate novel variations on its own, but 'ns'cannot generate novelty off its own bat, then 'rgm' may theoretically proposed as the source of increased biodiversity, but 'ns' cannot be. "NS" is reduced to a 'post hoc' epiphenomenon of 'rgm'. Like a bread truck to a bakery, as per my analogy. By 'prominent' I suppose you to mean 'numerically greater relative to other traits'. But how do you know that it is 'advantageous'? Because it has become 'numerically greater relative to other traits'?!? This is the old 'fitness' tautology. Like all tautologies and circular arguments, it sounds great,-- but means nothing.
Besides, as I've already told you, having more individuals with the same bioform does not increase biodiversity--only having more varieties of bioform does that. By which you mean that it has not been 'selected against', meaning only that it was not wiped out, eradicated, or even diminished numerically, by 'ns'. 'Not killing' someone is not the same as bringing new life into the world. Sparing a life is not saving a life.Environmental factors result in the differential mortality rates deaths of different organisms. Some organisms die sooner than others, from an almost infinite variety of particular causes, most of them environmental and/or organismic. Dressing up this fact/effect with labels like 'negative selection' and 'positive selection', and then awarding causal power to a label/fact/effect, is inane. Actually, I mean that 'to select for' is meaningless. "Selection", in the notional darwinian sense of 'natural selection', can only 'subtract from', never 'add to', the biodiversity available to it. So, as I've said again and again, where increased biodiversity is concerned, 'positive selection' aka 'positive natural selection', is merely a fantasy. I have already ready everything available online wrt 'natural selection'. It is not for lack of study and research that I have never found an empirical, [scientific], as opposed to notional,[metaphysical], description/definition of 'natural selection'. I know all the ideology and dogma. What I still need to hear are some empirical, universal, non-relative, non-nebulous, descriptions/definitions that would transform 'ns' from an imaginative, allegorical abstraction into an actual, natural, universal, regular, predictable, formalized agent of causation in biology-- [like gravity in physics, say]. I think it would be better phrased this way:--How can biodiversity increase where the causal factor to which the increase is attributed [ns] is only capable of removing traits from the total number of presently existing biodiverse traits. Uhm, yes, I do distinguish between addition and subtraction, and insist that the one cannot be the other. As above. Conflated it with what?!?! Meaning that 'rgm' supposedly causes the change in bioform, [additional bioform being an increase in biodiversity], and 'ns' supposedly causes a change in the numbers of the same bioform [no increase in biodiversity]. The biodiversity of the greaqt plains did not change just because there were more or fewer bison grazing on it. It changed when new bioforms [the horse, domestic animals, etc.] were added to it, or, [like the passenger pigeon and others extinct lifeforms], were subtracted from it. Actually I've said no such thing. What I have said is that you are confusing increased biodiversity [an increase in the number of taxa ] with population expansion [an increase in the number of individuals within the same taxon]. Well, convincing me that subtraction equals addition is, I suspect, going to be one heck of a hard job; but you are free to try it on. Good luck.

Hi brad;You ask-- As you find it. It is straightforward enough. .Google 'pangenesis'. Wiki has a piece on it, among many other sources. Firstly, Richard Lewontin is just as human as you or I, so his opinions are not necessarily matters of fact. Secondly, forgive me for being obtuse, but the expression, 'evolution is a differential relation between organisms and environments' means absolutely nothing to me. Change the expression to 'the modern hypothesis about evolution is that evolution consists of a differential relation between organisms and their environments' and it sounds sensible, but despite the sound, I still cannot make sense of it.It would appear to point out that two variables, biological evolution and environmental change, correlate differentially. Like wages and prices. That is, they are different from each other, and do not have a fixed and dependent positive correlation with each other.That, it would seem to me, is Lewontin's long way of repeating that he is, like Gould was, an 'anti-adaptationist'. That is, he denies that adaptation to environmental changes, and their subsequent demands upon the organism, actually account for changes in that organism/bioform, i.e., evolution. Rather, he believes, with many others, that morphological and behavioural change [biological evolution], 'just happens, that's all'. IOW, that evolution is just a 'drunken walk', a series of random and minute phenotypic accidents originating in random genetic mutations, none of which can be predicted or explained. Which, if we took his word for it, would render 'evolutionary biology' a non-starter.IAC, he most definitely is stating that he thinks that Darwin's "NS" was, and is, a great big mistake.Of course, I'm no expert on Lewontin, so if that is not what he is saying, please feel free to quote his words and explain them to me. Say what? Please don't throw jargon around. It does not impress me. Being abstruse is sometimes very like being obtuse. Are you saying that because there is some 'monophyly' to be found in the biosphere (among all the taxonomical groups extant), that that somehow 'connects' to the role of adaptation, [or the lack thereof], in biological diversity?!? As written it's a total 'non sequitur'. A semantic disconnect. And since when is 'equilibrium' a synonym for 'interrelation'? Or are you trying to say something else? I really cannot tell.I do not know if English is your second language, but your use of the word 'connote' is entirely inappropriate in this context. I made a statement that referred directly to an historical event. I implied, i,e,, connoted', i.e., 'implied', _nothing else_ within that statement.And 'says' would be a much better choice of words than "denotes", which, (if you don't mind), smacks of pretentiousness. It would help me to help you if you would spell out just what it is that you refer to by, "what you mean here". I meant just what I said. There is no trick to it. Who is FHW and what did he "postulate"? And what "thinking" are you referring to--anti-adaptationism? Lysenko practiced his own [rather odd] conception of lamarckian adaptationism, whereas Morgan was an early anti-adaptationist who dismissed both Lamarck and Darwin;-- if that's what you mean?!? Again, I cannot quite grasp your meaning. Shouldn't 'what'(?) be attributed to de Vries? I think that you are probably using "to postulate" where one of the words, 'to propose', 'to theorize', 'to hypothesize', or even, 'to speculate', might be a better choice. Out of context this makes no sense. I'm sorry, but your verbiage is only giving me a headache. I cannot respond to words that do not convey meaning, and yours do not.I'm going to have to sign off and only respond again when, and if, you can get your points across clearly and directly.Sorry.

It's fairly common, but it only represents a very simplified picture of the whole phenotype - one trait, as opposed to the whole mix of traits in every organism. I agree the analogy is flawed for that reason, it's really only intended to show how selection works, not how that selection increases diversity. It's also flawed and limited in only selecting one (1) trait. Not really. The mutation is what first introduces a new variation on a theme into the mix, agreed, and it is random, agreed, but that is not the full picture.Without selection it doesn't make it to the next generation, so it then adds a (+1 organism +1 generation) amount of diversity which is then gone with the next generation, a net zero position.For it to continue in the population from generation to generation it must not only be there to be selected, it must be actually selected, ie - when the parent organism passes the new trait on to its offspring it is because the trait (mixed in the phenotype of the parent) is selected to have offspring. With every offspring then this singular mutation adds another (+1 organism +1 generation) amount of diversity and keeps the overall total from returning to the net zero positionSo positive selection is necessary to maintain a +1 unit of diversity, while negative selection can remove it (and return to a net zero position, not an overall decrease - for any new mutation).But that is not all selection does, because there are more traits involved (and they don't all operate independently). Let's take the simple model and add another level of complexity to reflect this relationship to other traits (alleles, forms of a gene).Let's say there were two traits (alleles) before, A and B, and the organisms, having two strands of DNA, one from each parent, could have either of the following combinations: AA, AB, BB, BA. This results in 3 basic combinations in 25%, 50% and 25% probabilities in the offspring.Now we add trait (allele) C into the mix, positively select for it so that it is now passed on to the next generations, mixing with AA, AB, and BB types to result in AA, AB, AC, BB, BA, BC, CC, CA, CB combinations, or 6 basic combinations AA, AB, BB, AC, BC, CC.Result: diversity has doubled. Not by the mutation, that was the last generation, but by the selection of the mutation to mix with other combinations in the second generation.But that's not all.Selection doesn't operate on just one gene and the various alleles for that gene in a population, it operates on the phenotype of the organisms carrying those specific gene alleles in combination with all the other gene alleles for all the features that make up the total organism. This means that different combinations of different gene alleles make up the phenotype (which is important because it is the phenotype that is selected, not individual features: a man does not select arms from one woman, legs from another ...).So we need to take our model up to another level of complexity to better represent reality. Let's assume we have:

• feature 1 with say 4 alleles (10 combination),
• feature 2 with 5 alleles (15 combinations),
• feature 3 with 2 alleles (3 combinations) and
• feature 4 with 2 alleles (3 combinations) that have now been increased to 3 alleles (6 combinations) per the above.

Before the mutation was introduced into the population the total diversity possible for all the combinations of those different combinations of alleles for those different features was10 x 15 x 3 x 3 = 1350 possible phenotypesNow it is10 x 15 x 3 x 6 = 2700 possible phenotypesThose increased numbers of possible phenotypes is not due to the introduction of the mutation into one organism in a population but ONLY to the selection of that new trait to mix with other existing traits in the population.Therefore selection can cause an increase in diversity.QED.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarity

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

“Subtraction equals addition” (although worded poorly) when your influx is greater than your retractions. Where ”influx’ is the alleles provided by RM and a ”retraction’ is selecting against an allele via NS. I guess I can see how you might think that, but I am not confusing those things. Okay smartass I wanted to make sure you weren’t in the “RM cannot add info” crowd. You have to have more alleles being introduced to the population, by RM, than there are being removed from the population, by NS. I would call that Genetic Drift. It is possible for it to lead to an increase in biodiversity but improbable. An allele is advantageous when it affects the phenotype in a way that increases the chance of the allele to be present in future generations in higher quantities. The selection is positive when it is not selected against. What would you call a number that is non-zero and non-negative? I see what you mean that NS isn’t really “adding” anything to the biosphere, but if it is non-zero and non-negative, then calling it positive seems fine to me. Unless, you want to turn this into a semantics argument? (I don’t.)You get a constant influx of mutations to the population from RM. In a simplified model, NS just puts pressure on some of those mutations so that it is harder for them to reproduce. However, NS can also promote the reproduction of that mutation, if the mutation provides a benefit to reproducing.Now, we can imagine mutations coming in from all over the place, in a way that each individual is more like a new bioform that it is a member of the parent bioform. In this case, every bioform that did not get selected against, or had a benefit that made reproduction easier, would be an increase in the biodiversity. In this case we would see biodiversity increase readily and quickly.This, however, is not how it works in the real world. What we do have is a relatively small amount of mutations and those mutation are such that the new bioform is hardly distinguishable from the parent, if at all. It works out in a way that one allele might have an 89.67% chance of being passed on, and another has a 90% chance. This slight difference in that chance, when compounded over many generations leads to significant changes in the bioform. As long as there are significant changes in the bioform, speciation events are possible, and biodiversity can increase.It is NS that provided that extra third of a percent chance of the allele being passed on. That is the positive selection that can “cause” the increase in biodiversity.But on the semantic side, it doesn’t really “cause” it because the new information has been provided by RM, not NS. So, we can say that RM causes it, but without the selective pressure, the chances of being passed on would be random, and it would boil down to the “its just so” case you’ve mentioned. It would be totally stochastic. But that is not what we observe. Yes, NS is not the ”source’. But it can and does provide non-zero, non-negative pressure on bioforms so that their genotype has an actual better chance of reproduction, which causes the variation within the population, which is what can lead to a speciation event and thus an increase in biodiversity. But from RM, we have a constant addition of new “lives”. To not remove a new life means that bringing new life into the world is the default. What about it, specifically, makes it inane?The causal power is awarded because NS can have an effect that makes the allele more beneficial, that the allele has a higher probability of succeeding. RM alone doesn’t provide this benefit. It takes that environment to put the pressure on all the others, or remove pressure from the one in order for the diversity to increase. The increase in individuals with the allele are technically in the same bioform, but as more and more mutations stack up, the individuals become more and more distinct from that bioform and when a speciation event occurs, the biodiversity increases. But speciation does not work like: bison --> horse.
It’d be more like: bison --> bisoe --> bosoe --> bosse --> hosse --> horse.
Where the bisoe split from the bison, while the bison remained. The bisoe and bison, are not easily recognized as different bioforms, just like the bosoe and the bisoe aren’t, it is only after much change that we can recognize that a horse is no longer in the same bioform as a bison. That seems about right. And that’s where the conflation of the word “cause” comes into play. Can we say that either one of them really causes biodiversity, can’t we say that they both cause it? It depends on how we use the word “cause”. What do you propose is the “fix” to the ToE that I would have a problem with?Just for shits and giggle, what if I concede that NS cannot do it, then what do you propose IS the “cause” of the increase in biodiversity that we observe?