Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes (2/14/05)

Wow! and I thought our texts were a bit medicure and out of date. My daughter 6 years ago in elementary school had a text which, while simple and short, got it right. Then last year in grade 11 they went into a bit of detail discussing how this works.All of it still pretty simple compared to what she will get into at the university level but that is what you have to do when there is very limited time and a group of students not all of whom are as interested as some are.Of course, if evolution isn't discussed well I might refer you to the article in the NY Times of a couple of weeks ago that points out that, while the court cases are stopping the fundamentalists from officially tampering with a descent education, they are coming in the back door by causing so much hassle for educators that a discussion of evolution is curtailed in practice. If there is a problem with the popular understanding it may not all be blamed on poorly written texts and poorly trained teachers. Perhaps it is just the sort that maintain AIG and ICR that can be blamed.

quote:

---

If you hang around for a few months you might begin to suspect that there are not any creationists with the requisite knowledge. You might find that, search as you might, you won't find the creationist sites making arguments that we haven't had fun with several times over here. You might even begin to wonder what all of that is telling you.

---

I've had enough experience in this kind of debate from time to time to understand the problems with the terminology and what constitutes proof. I think there are excellent creationist scientists who know a lot more than I can digest but I haven't checked up on their thinking for a while so maybe I will do that, and see if I can find discussions on creationist sites at the same time. I think the creationist argument is hampered to a great extent by the fact that the whole territory is a minefield of evolutionist assumptions.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm bringing it up because it struck me that if all the processes of evolution tend to a reduction in variability that that's a very good clue to where the end point of evolution that creationists need to establish may be found.

---

​

quote:

---

Not being an evolutionary biologist I can't be sure, but I think you have a good point. I'm pretty sure that the issue of variability and viability of gene pools in the long term is actually examined and modeled by researchers. It is looked at just because you have, at the base, a valid point. However, it isn't the big giant killer you think it is.

---

---

Yes, I was starting to get the impression that it is looked at because it raises the problems for evolution I sincerely hope it does. Thanks for the acknowledgment. Sometimes killing a giant only takes a slingshot.

quote:

---

You should also note that in the process of science it is those same researchers who do the most rigorous digging into such issues. You seem to think that a bias will blind them but that is why we don't relay on the thinking of just few individuals.

---

This is one area where I would expect minimal interference by bias.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Another discussion I could get into is the Biblical Flood answer to the Geologic Time Table as the only likely alternative explanation for the geological facts of the strata and fossils.

---

​

quote:

---

Oh good! This is one that has been discussed at some length. However, we have had no good explanation that stands up to scrutiny.

---

---

Well, I do believe the Flood explains the facts, certainly far better than the Geologic Time Table does, but my main argument is that the Geologic Time Table is such a silly idea on the face of it, just looking at the strata it supposedly explains, it should embarrass scientists to take it seriously. No need for all the minute investigations of particular bits of data as the basic picture is already ridiculous. Don't know if I care to slog through all that again, but we'll see.Thanks for being nice. I agree, discussions are fun. I do a lot of it. But I've been in the arguments that get worked to death too so not sure how much more of that I want to take on.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-17-2005 03:36 AM

quote:

---

Well, I do believe the Flood explains the facts, certainly far better than the Geologic Time Table does, but my main argument is that the Geologic Time Table is such a silly idea on the face of it, just looking at the strata it supposedly explains, it should embarrass scientists to take it seriously. No need for all the minute investigations of particular bits of data as the basic picture is already ridiculous. Don't know if I care to slog through all that again, but we'll see.

---

The real situation is exactly the reverse. The Flood as an explanation for geology is very, very silly which is why geology abandoned it quite early. Mainstream geological views - while incomplete - are far more sensible.

quote:

---

quote:

---

...my main argument is that the Geologic Time Table is such a silly idea on the face of it, just looking at the strata it supposedly explains, it should embarrass scientists to take it seriously...

---

​

quote:

---

The real situation is exactly the reverse. The Flood as an explanation for geology is very, very silly which is why geology abandoned it quite early. Mainstream geological views - while incomplete - are far more sensible.

---

---

Geology abandoned a wrong view of the Flood as I understand it. There were some silly ideas of what the effects of such a Flood would be a century or so ago. But the idea that the strata could have built up over billions of years is ridiculous on the face of it. A few feet of perfectly horizontal evenly deposited sediments is supposed to have occurred over a few million years? What, at a rate of a millimeter a century? No rain, no wind, no flooding, no erosion, no earthquakes, no disturbances? Over huge swaths of planet earth? In all the mountains that were pushed up after it formed, in all the deserts, everywhere one looks? Then precisely sharply demarcated from another similar formation of a different kind of material equally homogeneous and neatly laid down bit by tiny bit for another umpteen million years with another neat horizontal demarcation and so on and so forth and that's taken as real? And kabillions of fossils, marine fossils in the mountains etc etc etc etc etc Fossils take special conditions to be made etc etc etc etc etcBut since I'm sure you are a veteran of this argument, as am I, maybe we should just agree to avoid it as it is always the same old. Anyway it belongs in another thread and I'm going to bed, so goodnight.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-17-2005 04:11 AM

Yes, Geology abandoned a "wrong view" of the flood - the idea that it accounted for an appreciable part of the Geological record.And quite frankly before condemning modern geological views you should actually learn what they are, instead of beating up on straw men.

Because they are. Mutation is not selection; selection is not mutation. They're two different processes.But together they are evolution. (It sounds like I'm describing the Wonder Twins.) I don't see the difference. If you have a process that expands diversity randomly, combined with a process that contracts diversity non-randomly, the result is going to be a directed change in allele frequencies. Obviously. Again I don't see how the elements you've mentioned aren't directly implied by the definition of evolution as a change in allele frequencies. Nonetheless, though, I think you've actually added something to the discussion - the idea of the processes of evolution being counterposing forces that expand or contract diversity - and for that your clear thinking should be commended.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-17-2005 10:14 AM

What makes you think that there are no disturbances, or that these processes didn't leave marks in the strata that we can detect? I mean its news to me that the geologic strata contains no evidence of all of these processes occuring. Wherever did you get such an idea?

quote:

---

quote:

---

No rain, no wind, no flooding, no erosion, no earthquakes, no disturbances?

---

​

quote:

---

What makes you think that there are no disturbances, or that these processes didn't leave marks in the strata that we can detect? I mean its news to me that the geologic strata contains no evidence of all of these processes occuring. Wherever did you get such an idea?

---

---

By looking at it. If such disturbances occurred throughout those billions of years at the same rate they do now, or even a much reduced rate, there is no way a horizontal deposition of sediments would have survived anywhere. It isn't a matter of "marks" one can "detect," it's a matter of the whole supposed process being impossible.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-17-2005 10:53 AM

evolution is the forum, limitations is the topic.Please head over to Geology and the Great Flood for this current discussion.

quote:

---

Yes, Geology abandoned a "wrong view" of the flood - the idea that it accounted for an appreciable part of the Geological record.
And quite frankly before condemning modern geological views you should actually learn what they are, instead of beating up on straw men.

---

OK, entertain me with the latest ideas about how the strata got there -- I've run into some in other arguments years ago -- but as long as they are taken to represent great aeons of time there is no explanation that can overcome that ridiculous idea.Actually, I expected eventually to read through the threads on that subject so no need to bother.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-17-2005 11:02 AM

The Flood is getting way too far off topic. Let's start yet another flood thread if we're going there again.

---

quote:

---

The lists of processes of evolution present them all separately-and-equally as separate processes.

​

Because they are. Mutation is not selection; selection is not mutation. They're two different processes.

---

My point was that mutation is apparently considered to be going on in all populations, even in the most extremely fixated. The others are events that happen now and then. The way the discussion has gone here suggests that mutation should be included in the presentation of all the events as well as described independently. Also, I was the one who had to point out to somebody earlier on that they are two different processes.

quote:

---

But together they are evolution. (It sounds like I'm describing the Wonder Twins.)

---

That's why it would be clearer if they were presented in the combinations you expect them to occur, instead of separately.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm the one who said it sounds like the definition should be changed from Evolution = change in the frequency of alleles to Evolution = Mutation PLUS the selection processes that reduce diversity.

---

​

quote:

---

I don't see the difference. If you have a process that expands diversity randomly, combined with a process that contracts diversity non-randomly, the result is going to be a directed change in allele frequencies. Obviously.

---

---

If you don't make it clear that you assume mutation to be ongoing in ALL populations then it appears that selection could occur without it, which is where I started out thinking about this, not realizing just how mutation-preoccupied the whole field is. [quote]

quote:

---

If this is now the going definition of evolution, acknowledging all these elements in the process, fine.

---

quote:

---

Again I don't see how the elements you've mentioned aren't directly implied by the definition of evolution as a change in allele frequencies. Nonetheless, though, I think you've actually added something to the discussion - the idea of the processes of evolution being counterposing forces that expand or contract diversity - and for that your clear thinking should be commended

---

Thank you.

Not "considered", known. It's known to be going on in all populations, in every individual. I don't think there's anyone here but creationists who don't understand that selection and mutation are two different processes, with unique effects on a population's genetics. That's why we always formulate evolution as natural selection and random mutation; and why creationists point out that mutations aren't selective and that selection isn't creative and think that they've refuted evolution. Of course selection could occur without it. But it never does, because it's impossible according to the laws of physics to avoid mutation. It has to happen, and we observe that it always does.

Faith, I hope you'll join us in a discussion of your objections here.

quote:

---

I don't think there's anyone here but creationists who don't understand that selection and mutation are two different processes, with unique effects on a population's genetics. That's why we always formulate evolution as natural selection and random mutation;

---

That's not how it is presented on umpteen biology websites and evolution glossaries.