THE END OF EVOLUTION?

While we can speculate about causes, such as the ones you suggest and many others like modern health care and lifestyle changes, we don't really know what they are. I don't know if you saw my Message 140, but the evidence suggests that human beings are evolving at more and more rapid rates compared to before 10,000 years ago. Native Americans arrived here around 10,000 years ago, so a separation of 10,000 years obviously isn't long enough given the available selection pressures. Australian aborigines arrived there around 40,000 years ago, so that wasn't long enough, either. How long is long enough, and what kind of environmental pressures would be sufficient? Again, we're back to speculation, and I won't hazard a guess.It is required that genes not intermingle or at least intermingle very little in order for two populations to diverge in hereditary terms, and DNA studies on various populations of human beings around the world confirm that this has happened, but not to the extent of creating a new species, just new races. The interconnectedness of the modern world seems to guarantee increasing levels of genetic intermingling, so speciation of humans seems very unlikely.Coyote speculates that speciation would be more likely if human beings were to become a space-faring race, and I agree with him, though we proabably disagree about the likelihood of us populating space.--Percy

Me too. Ursala K. LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness dealt with significant human evolution, and Clark's Rendevous with Rama dealt with significant evolution among aliens. My favorite idea for space travel was James Blish's spindizzy, and Frederick Pohl's Gateway series had an appealingly mysterious space drive. Lloyd Biggle Jr.'s Dark series had matter transmission, but how did he get it to go faster than light? Anyway, all great stuff!--Percy

Who said anything about getting information from nothing? I said that numbers approaching googols of bits of information are being created throughout the universe every second. That information isn't coming from nothing. It's coming from the universe, and the universe isn't nothing. Even the vacuum of empty space is seething with virtual particles and isn't nothing.When using an information theoretic approach to entropy then you're tracking the number of possible states of a system. The smaller the number of possible states the lower the entropy. The lowest possible entropy occurs when only one state is possible, and the maximum possible entropy occurs with the greatest number of possible states, such as will occur with the heat death speculated to be the ultimate destiny of the universe.A coin before being flipped has two possible states, either heads or tails. A ball in a roulette wheel has 38 possible states. Obviously the coin has lower entropy than the roulette wheel.--Percy

I'm not sure in what way you're misunderstanding what I said, so let me say it again in a slightly different way. There is no one alive from 10000 years or 6000 years ago or even 200 years ago, so we cannot perform an actual fertility test where an actual sperm fertilizes an actual egg.That's why I said we'd have to rely on a less-than-conclusive genetic analysis. There's not really any reliable way to tell interfertility just by inspection of DNA that's already very similar.The E-word that Coragyps was referring to is evolution. Cells copy themselves imperfectly, and that is the source of the variation upon which selection operates. Combine the variation produced by descent with modification with selection and you've got evolution.But you're again forgetting the topic. While arguing that evolution isn't possible you made a number of confused claims about 2LOT, entropy and information. Was my explanation in Message 150 helpful?The bottom line is that reproduction is almost always imperfect. A child cell is almost never a perfect copy of its parent, and sexual species even less often produce children that are perfect copies of themselves. The issue for you isn't whether genetic changes (mutations) happen during reproduction, because there can be no doubt that they invariably do. Your problem is that there is nothing that could ever stop them from occurring and accumulating over the generations.--Percy

Hi Alaninnont,A diagram probably makes this easier to talk about. Here's a Google satellite image of the US with the geographical locations of a hypothetical set of closely related species arranged in a ring: A can breed only with B.B can breed with both A and C.C can breed with both B and D.Etc. until you end with I which can breed only with H.In other words, all species can interbreed with species adjacent geographically except for A and I.So gene intermingling occurs between A and B, but not A and I, at least not directly. It is possible for genetic information to be transmitted from A to I via all the intermediate species from B to H, but that would be a very, very slow process. This means there is a high degree of genetic isolation between A and I, and for all intents and purposes their genes do not intermingle.A and I are separate species because they cannot interbreed.A and B can interbreed and sometimes do, but they are not exactly the same species, nor are the they different species. This comes about because evolution is a gradual process. As species become more and more genetically different over time, the likelihood of individuals from the populations being interfertile declines.B can interbreed with both A and C, and again, it isn't exactly the same species as A, and not the same species as C, but nor is it exactly a different species.However, B is less able to breed with D, even less able to breed with E, and so forth. In other words, as the genetic differences increase, so does the degree of interfertility decrease.--Percy

Ring species are very real. It's because of their reality that they were introduced into the discussion. They are an illustration of a gradually changing species, with the changes distributed geographically in the here and now, rather than distributed across time in the past. Since all members of a ring species still exist, their living members can be studied extensively, something that isn't possible when all you have is a fossil (though some fossils do exhibit DNA remnants).I don't keep a list of ring species in my head, I have to look it up. Wikipedia has an article on Ring Species, and they provide several examples, and I found several more over at TalkOrigins:

• Larus gulls form a ring of species around the North Pole.
• Ensatina salamanders from a ring around the Central Valley in California.
• As Coragyps mentioned, the Greenish Warbler set of species forms a ring around the Himalayas.
• The deer mouse
• The American bee Hoplitis producta
• The subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi
• The Great Tit, Parus major

Ring species were introduced into the discussion to help answer this very question. Sexual species are grouped into species by reproductive boundaries, but some reproductive boundaries are more distinct than others. A cat cannot under any circumstances breed with a dog. Even using artificial semination, cat sperm could never fertilize a dog ova, and dog sperm could never fertilize a cat ova. The reproductive boundary between cats and dogs is very firm.But a lion can breed with a tiger. They're called ligers and tigons. The offspring are almost always infertile and so populations of ligers and tigons can never spring up. So although lions and tigers are mutually interfertile, they are considered separate species because the offspring cannot produce a line of descendants.But the species that compromise a ring species and that are adjacent geographically are not so distinct reproductively. They can not only interbreed, their offspring are often fertile. Hence small hybrid populations are not uncommon at the limits of their ranges where the two species might come in contact with one another.So going back to my diagram, are A and B separate species? It's hard to say. Let's say the fertility of A mating with B is the same as when A mates with A, or when B mates with B. Should they be considered different species just because they have different ranges, behaviors and appearance? Biologists can, and I'm sure do at least occasionally, have long arguments about this.But now let's say that when A mates with C, which is more distant genetically from A than was B, that around 50% of the offspring are infertile. Are they the same species?And when A mates with D, even more distant genetically, lets say that around 10% of the offspring are fertile. Are they the same species?And when A mates with E, F, G, H or I, almost no offspring are ever fertile. They're definitely not the same species.What ring species with their indistinct boundaries illustrate is the gradual nature of evolution. New species do not emerge suddenly. New species are the product of very gradual change over long periods of time. As changes accumulate the emerging species becomes less and less capable of interbreeding with the original species, and at some point those responsible for classification decide that the various differences are sufficient to justify classification as a new species. After absorbing the above, do you still believe this?--Percy

No one is claiming a ring species with a salamander at one end and a bear at the other. Could you please try to make sense? What I said was, "But you're again forgetting the topic. While arguing that evolution isn't possible you made a number of confused claims about 2LOT, entropy and information. Was my explanation in Message 150 helpful?"It's difficult to maintain a discussion if you're not going to respond to what people say. Was my explanation in Message 150 helpful or not? If yes, great! If not why not?--Percy

This is a good starting point, but first we need to have at least one ground rule. You might recall that I pointed you at Shannon's landmark paper A Mathematical Theory of Communication that founded the field of information theory, and I quoted to you the part that made clear the distinction between information and meaning, here it is again: So the ground rule is that if you're going to make claims about information theory, as you did when you claimed that information and entropy would invalidate evolution, then you have to use the actual for-real definition of information theory. You can't just go making things up willy-nilly while ignoring explanations.Your failure to post substantive responses is how we've gotten to this point where I find that after many explanations that you found them confusing. You have to engage the discussion. If someone posts something you don't understand, say so, right then. Don't let the conversation go on for another 20 posts until it finally becomes apparent that you're not really following things. In this case we find that the reason you didn't understand Message 150 is because you didn't understand Message 138 before that, or Message 127 before that where I first cited Shannon. Success in debate is not measured by how well you succeed in not understanding what other people say.I suggest that you go back and read those messages again now, Message 127, Message 138 and finally Message 150, and let me know what parts of it you don't understand. You don't have to accept it, we're just trying to reach the point where you understand what is being said.In information theory, data and information are synonyms. You've been using the word information incorrectly. You should be using the word "meaning" when you say "information".You said in Message 136 that information is useless unless it has meaning, but as the Shannon paper explains, meaning is not part of information. Meaning is independent of information. Meaning is what intelligent entities like ourselves attach to information, and meaning is irrelevant to the information problem. If you're intent on ignoring these facts about information then it won't be possible to have a discussion with you. Post as much as you like, but if you ignore reality then any claims you make won't have any meaning in the real world. As Coragyps has already pointed out with his apt example, our Sun produces billions of bits of information every second. We didn't create the information about the Sun's spectrum. We didn't create the information about the Sun's magnetic fields. We didn't create the information about sunspots. The Sun created this information all by itself without any help from us. All we intelligent beings are doing is recording the information produced by the Sun.--Percy

To express what you're trying to say correctly, it should read, "Intelligent humans interpret data or information (they're synonyms) to create meaning."--Percy

Hi LucyTheApe,For economy I'm going to reply to your three messages in this single message, I guess starting here: What's really happening is that you're equivocating with the word information, moving back and forth between two definitions. When you say that the concept of entropy from information theory (see Shannon's paper beginning on page 10) will invalidate evolution, you're talking about Shannon information, a technical engineering definition.When you describe the writing of a book as creating information, you're using a different definition of information, an everyday layman's definition.If you're going to invoke information entropy as part of your argument against evolution, then you have to stick with the Shannon definition of information. The everyday definition of information does not include the concept of entropy.You said a couple of things that are undeniably true, and I thought I'd highlight them. There was this: Yes, absolutely. And next there was this: Again, yes, absolutely. Intelligent beings attach meaning to information. The distinction is slight in information theory. Information is the original message. Data is encoded information that is transmitted. In the simplest case there's no encoding and the data and information are the same. I have no choice but to keep referring you back to Shannon, because Shannon information is where the concept of entropy you use in your claims about information is mathematically described. If you're not talking about Shannon information then you have no entropy claim to make.In response to my example of the information produced by the Sun you inquired: I guess what I should have said is that our Sun produces the *equivalent* of billions of bits of information every second. The Sun is of course not encoding the information it transmits into binary. The Sun's information is contained in the electromagnetic radiation it emits. Expressing the amount of information in terms of bits is just a simple convenience, but it could easily be base-10 digits or any other kind of useful encoding. In fact, the first computers tended to use base-10 instead of binary.When we measure the Sun's electromagnetic spectrum and determine that the temperature of its photosphere is 5800 degrees Kelvin, where did the information ultimately come from? It came from the Sun, right? Could scientists create the information about the temperature of the Sun's photosphere all by themselves without observing the Sun? Of course not! Scientists didn't create the information about the photosphere's temperature, the Sun did. All scientists did was translate the electromagnetic radiation containing that information into human understandable terms.Plants also receive information from the Sun in the form of this electromagnetic radiation. The decrease in entropy provides them the potential to grow.--Percy

LucyTheApe's claim is that only intelligent beings can create information, that in the absence of intelligent beings information entropy can never decrease. Evolution requires a decrease in information entropy without the intervention of an intelligence, which is impossible, and therefore we're at the end of evolution because no evolution could ever have happened in the first place.I'm trying to explain to LucyTheApe what information theory can really say about evolution, but I can't seem to get past the first step, which is convincing him that that the field has already been very clearly defined, and that he can't just make it up according to what he wishes it would say.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add clarity.

You claim is empty, it has no support. It is no more real than a dream. All you managed to do is string together a bunch of nonsense.When you make claims about information and entropy, then such claims have ties to actual science, and we can then measure how well your claims measure up scientifically.But unless you're talking about Shannon information when you claim that a cell has knowledge, there is no way to know what you're even talking about. Plus I think you must be drifting off-topic, because this is the first time in this thread that you have claimed that a cell has knowledge, and you make no attempt to tie this in to 2LOT.And unless you're drawing some sort of obscure analogy, saying that a cell "knows what it is and what it has to do" is just nonsense. A cell is not conscious or aware.There can never be any "lack of the effect of the 2nd law". 2LOT is one of the well understood physical laws of the universe, and it is always in play. There is never a time or place where matter and energy do not obey 2LOT.It is incorrect to say that, "a DNA strand tells us that life is not chance." Simple analysis of DNA before and after cell division conclusively reveals that random mutations occur in nearly every reproductive event.About the only thing you said that isn't wrong or questionable is, "A cell has to replicate through time and space, with no recall, it can't go back and try again." Congratulations on making one non-wrong statement.Your series of claims reads like nonsense, but more to the point, I don't think they are the same as the one with which you opened this thread when you asked if evolution obeys 2LOT. Of course evolution obeys 2LOT. The entire universe obeys 2LOT. We can observe evolution in action, so it happens and like every other process it obeys 2LOT.If you would like to continue discussing evolution and 2LOT in information theoretic terms then just say so, but leave out the off-topic stuff.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

You don't? You think that DNA in a living cell isn't subject to 2LOT? Are there other natural physical laws you think it is immune to? Gravity, perhaps? Electromagnetic radiation? Maybe Boyle's law? Relativity?Physical laws, as far as we have been able to establish, apply to everything everywhere throughout the universe. That includes DNA. DNA is definitely *not* "holding up against the effect of the 2nd LOT". DNA obeys every iota of 2LOT always.If we ever discovered material that wasn't subject to the laws of the universe, especially a law as significant as 2LOT since it's the one that rules out perpetual motion machines and free energy, it would be a momentous discovery. First understand that evolution is just change over time, and the original source of change is mutation. Whether a mutation is beneficial or detrimental makes no difference, a change is a change.Reproductive events are almost never perfect. Mutations occur in almost all reproductive events. This includes you.Different organisms have different mutation rates. Typical mutation rates range from as high as 10^-4 per base pair for some eukaryotes to as low as 10^-8. Just to put this in perspective, the mutation rate for humans is 10^-8 per base pair, human DNA has about 3x10⁹ base pairs, so on average each person has about 30 random mutations (3x10⁹ x 10^-8). For example, your DNA is probably different from your parents at the locations of somewhere around 30 random base pairs (there are other changes that involve the arrangement of genes on chromosomes during sexual reproduction where mistakes can also cause larger scale mutations, and there are other possibilities for mutations, but let's keep this simple and stick with mutations that are just simple base pair substitutions). Are you as unaware as you seem that you're stating as a given an unsupported and unproven conclusion? Describe for us how the creation of new information violates 2LOT. Every reproductive event produces mutations. This means that almost all offspring are different from their parents, and since they as parents will in turn produce offspring who are different genetically (only slightly, of course, but still different) from themselves, what on earth could ever prevent evolution? For there to be no evolution, reproduction would have to be perfect. But reproduction is almost never perfect. That's why evolution is inevitable. There is no way to prevent evolution from happening.--Percy

I think it was probably somewhere earlier in this thread where I mentioned that there is research indicating that human beings have been evolving at an increasingly rapid rate over the past 10,000 years, and that we're evolving at a more rapid rate today than at any time in our evolutionary history.Speculation is that it's because modern living is considerably different from before 10,000 years ago and the invention of agriculture, and later large urban areas and shopping malls. As more and more of the world joins the modern era the percentage of human beings subject to its unique environmental pressures (both new ones and the absence of old ones) increases. Even creationists must concede that our environment no longer selects against human beings too slow to outrun a Tyrannosaurus rex. --PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar, and improve clarity.

I think I understand what you're saying pretty well. This seems pretty clear. You're saying that there is some mysterious quality of life that enables it to hold up against the effects of 2LOT. This isn't true. Life has no mysterious quality relative to any physical laws, not 2LOT or any other. Life is just matter and energy participating in very complex chemical reactions, and it is no more or less able to hold up against 2LOT than anything else in the universe. Evolution already has a definition, you don't get to redefine it for your convenience. The word you should be using for "changes that lead to new species" is speciation. Small evolutionary changes over time gradually accumulate to the point where a new species classification is justified. This is what ring species illustrate so clearly, but geographically rather than temporally. So describe for us how creation of a new "structured information system" would violate 2LOT.You say that the spontaneous formation from raw materials of microchips and living cells is equally unlikely, and I agree with you. I suspect everyone else here agrees with you, too. That's because just as evolutionary theory doesn't postulate sudden and unlikely origins for species, and the same principles of slow and gradual change apply to the origin of life, too. Whatever the precursors of the first life, they must have been very simple by the standards of modern life forms, and their eventual emergence is thought to have been a very gradual process involving replicators of some type and taking millions of years. You need to find an analogy to what evolution actually says. Careful, your religious slip is showing again. Here in the science forums we talk science. This tells us a lot about you and nothing about 2LOT or evolution. Have you ever heard of the psychology studies that show a correlation between confidence and ignorance? Anyway, what you need is facts and evidence, not confidence.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : More grammar.