Evolution and Increased Diversity

Reading this thread, I find what appear to be these particular issues--a/ is biodiversity, [i.e., 'variation'in bioform and behaviour], a constant or a variable, and if a variable, than the effect of what specific cause?
b/is the amount of 'biodiversity' in the biosphere inconstant and variable in the short term,[say minutes to millions of years], but deterministically expansive over the long term, i.e., the entire 'lifespan' of planet earth?
c/can "Natural Selection" account for either fluctuations in the amount of biodiversity, both positively and negatively, in not only circumscribed localities, but even in the biosphere as a whole, and in both the long and short term?
d/ can "Random Genetic Mutation" do that?
e/ can "RM+NS" linked together, do that?
f/ is the extent of biodiversity, either short-term or long-term, an adaptationist [NS], or a stochastic [RM], or a mechanically/divinely predetermined [mechanist/creationist], effect?And in passing, I would note that any creationist who denies evolution and claims that all bioforms were created, ex nihilo, by 'god' on a given 'day', must, in view of subsequent 'floods', 'fires', 'plagues' and other 'acts of god', see that biodiversity would have to have been steadily _decreasing_ in overall extent since that time.
To admit of an increase in biodiversity over time is to admit the reality of evolution and the irreality of biblical literalism. Thus YEC creationism must be fundamentally different from OEC creationism, which would hold, if I understand it aright, that evolution does take place because the impulse to diversify and vary was 'built into', [i.e., predestined, predetermined, pre-programmed into], the 'original' lifeforms by a supernatural programmer, and so diversity and variation must, deterministically, [as a matter of 'predestination'] _increase_ over the long-term, i.e., the lifespan of the biosphere as a whole.

Sorry. Didn't intend to tax your reading ability. You're entitled to an opinion, just like anyone else, including any creationist. But unless you simply make that statement as an article of faith, it would be heplful to the rest of us if you would trouble yourself to back it up with empirical evidence and logical reasoning.
However, if you are unable to do that, I will understand. Another statement of faith. It is clear that "things [have actually been] that way", but that does not logically demonstrate that this observed development was determined, inevitable, and irresistably compelled by any causal force, be that force identified as the OEC's 'divine programming', or your 'natural selection'. To me both are equally 'metaphysical', [i.e., non-scientific], vacuities. Please show how your "NS" causes increased biodiversity, or even how it _might_ cause increased biodiversity. In the late 19th century, and on into the 1930's, it was felt that "NS" could do no such thing, and to compensate for this lacune Fisher and friends invented 'random genetic mutation',["RM"], as the basic cause of viable novel bioforms and behaviours; i.e., increased biodiversity. Evidently you have a more recent opinion, to the effect that "NS" can and does increase/cause biodiversity, and I would like to hear your reasoning for this, and to become acquainted with the empirical observations you use to support your reasoning to that conclusion. Please oblige me. IOW, no. It takes your "random mutation" to do that. [qs]

quote:

---

can "Random Genetic Mutation" do that?

---

No, it provides the opportunity for diversity but you need the selection to actually get the diversity.[qs] I'm afraid you'll have to explain and justify this claim, since on its face it makes no sense. Care to justify this statement of faith? I do not believe so, because if biodiversity is mechanically predetermined, as is widely supposed,
then 'adaptation', 'adaptedness', 'adaptable', and so on, add absolutely nothing to our understanding of it. 'Adaptation' depends upon an implied indeterminism, IMO, as does the whole concept of variety, diversity and difference. I would agree that it is "not stochastic", since there seem to be certain constraints upon biodiversity, and directions wrt its development, but there are many out there who insist that neither adaptation nor "NS" [nor anything else] accounts for biodiversity, but rather they avoid the issue of causation, and scientific explanation, altogether-- by proposing that change, difference, and diversity 'just happen, that's all', and 'what you get is what you get, for no particular reason'. That's what I got from the OP, but the ensuing posts do not seem to address disproving this creationist assumption, nor in demonstrating any scientific alternative. The thread is, in fact, thoroughly muddy and directionless. People are talking at and past each other without coming to grips with the actual issue--a scientific examination of biodiversity, its causes and its constraints, as opposed to the notion of biological diversity as an outcome predestined by 'god'. I would suggest that the notion of biological diversity determined by unspecified 'natural forces', aka "Natural Selection", amounts to the same metaphysical claim as 'predestination', stated in secular rather than theological fashion. If this is true, {How would I know, since you haven't told me why you think it true?}, then at least we can be assured that biodiversity is not mechanically determined. Which doesn't tell us what it is, but only what it is not. Still, if _demonstrably_ true, then at least it is a first step towards understanding. Which would make the entire concept of 'predestined' and 'determined' vacuous and useless. Edited by Elmer, : formatting errors

I'm not sure just what it is that you say that "the ToE" says. I was responding to your claim that "natural selection" can, [and presumably, does],account for fluctuations in the amount of biodiversity, both positive and negative, in not only circumscribed localities/ecosystems, but even in the biosphere as a whole, and in both the long and short term. As per your affirmative response to my question.
In short, you are saying that 'natural selection' causes fluctuations in biodiversity, (both increases and decreases), and not just locally, but globally, as well.
That's quite a sweeping claim, and all I've asked you to do is to back that claim with empirical evidence, and sound reasoning from that evidence. Now, I simply do not see how you can do that without clearly defining 'natural selection' as a causal agency, a natural (i.e., empirical) force, similar to gravity, etc., a physical, universal, scientific, discernible and describable mechanism. Not as an observed empirical effect of some other cause, force, mechanism or assortment of mechanisms and/or unrelated events, nor as a catch-all metaphor for such indescriminate, indeterminate unknowns. Most importantly, I would like to hear how it can be that such a force, cause, universal mechanism can _increase_ biodiversity, rather than just decrease or stabilize it. From what I know of 'natural selection', it simply cannot increase biodiversity; Fisher's "random, genetic mutation" is supposed, by neo-darwinists, to be the cause, force, mechanism that does that job. Except that 'random accident', "chance", "luck", "coincidence", "happenstance", being irregular and unpredictable, can never be called, nor called upon to replace, a 'force' or a 'mechanism', in terms applicable to scientific explanation for observed phenomena. Such as evolution and increased biological variation and complexity [biodiversity]. Only too easily, I fear. With respect, that seems silly and pointless. If that is the topic, (and I had supposed that it was), how can you discuss it if, as you say, "What we are doing, is discussing what the Theory of Evolution says about the observations. You don’t even have to believe that the explanations are correct to discuss them."?!?! That is not a theory; that is a tautological statement of a brute fact, a truism. It's no more scientific than the observation that rain tends to fall from cloudy, rather than cloudless skies. Therefpore a rtrait, [rain], will become "more prominent" depending upon the degree of cloud cover. It's true, but it isn't a truth that can be elevated to the status of 'scientific insight' or 'universal principle of science', or anything so edifying as all that. In short, your statement, as it stands, is meaningless. As above, exactly what is it that you are calling, "the selective factor"- (and please do not simply say, 'natural selection')-, and how does it increase biodiversity? What I hear you saying is that "NS" does not generate biodiversity, but causes particular bioforms to expand numerically. Now, my understanding of biodiversity says that the term has only to do with the numbers of different bioforms, and has nothing to do with the number of individuals belonging to a particular bioform. Therefore your "RM" still has nothing at all to do with biodiversity. Show me where I'm wrong. Actually, you've flat-out refused to "discuss what the ToE says". And it's [forgive me], silly and pointless to tie empirical observations to "the ToE" without clearly stating the precepts and principle of that hypothesis, supported by facts and logic which imbue it with at least a fair degree of 'truth value'. Your definition of 'explanation' is quite radically different from my own, apparently. And I've still got all the same questions that your "explanation" did anything but answer. Whether variation "gets passed on or not" has nothing to do with whether or not biodiversity increases, although it might be said to have something to do with whether or not it decreases. When a novel bioform, evern a single individual, comes into existence, then biodiversity may be said to have increased. So long as a single individual example of that bioform exists, it does not effect the sum of biodiversity. When the the last extant individual dies, that bioform goes extinct, and by so doing decreases biodiversity. In between its coming into existence and its extinction, that bioform does not alter the sum of biodiversity in the biosphere. See the questions I've been asking all along. As expected, but still disappointing. If a change in something is determined, predetermined, predestined, inevitable, inflexible, and mechanical, [see water freezing, melting, flowing, boiling, steaming, etc.], then in what sense can it be called 'adaptive', that is, 'able to adapt', where 'to adapt' means something more than simply 'to change/to be changed'?!?
Of course, if you wish to reduce 'to adapt' to a simple synonym for 'to change', as opposed to being a particular kind of change, I won't try to stop you, but that misses the point. WRT bioforms, 'to adapt' means to dynamically 'make suitable to or consistent with a particular situation or use'. Since that implies teleology, how do you reconcile that teleology with your determinism, without admitting to a belief that the entire universe is "teleologically determined", as opposed to "mechanically determined"? I don't think that you want to go there, do you? It isn't, unless you are a scientist-- or someone who wants to understand reality. What's to be scared of?!? And if "it" refers to "natural selection", then it is your good self that needs to explain why you think it is causative, since, as a matter of fact, I have no reason to believe that it is any such thing.Anyhoo, that's all the time I have.

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.

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.

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.

hi cs;You say-- Right away I have to stop you. Let's agree that to take the English language seriously, and not get lost in "Wonderland" with the likes of Humpty Dumpty. To be specific, in English,(and I supect any other earthly language), anything that is "greater than" something else is never "equal" to it. Excuse me, but you seem to be forgetting that we were discussing "natural selection", not "random genetic mutation". The issue being that 'ns' can only be subtractive, never additive, and so can only decrease biodiversity, and never increase it. "Random Genetic Mutation" is NOT "Natural Selection". They are entirely different notions. You cannot 'switch hit' from one to the other as the mood strikes you. A 'retraction' is a subtraction, i.e., a decrease, and wrt to biodiversity, and that is all that (notionally) 'ns' can ever accomplish.Now, if you want, we'll discuss the notion that biodiversity can be increased by random genetic mutations, but that is a separate issue concerning a different and quite distinct hypothetical mechanism. Well, you have a right to simply gainsay the obvious and undeniable, I suppose. That is not really true, but it is too soon to go into the complexities of what I believe. What I am saying is that darwinians of the fisherian variety, [that is, believers in what is called "random but beneficial genetic mutations"], believe that rgm can and does supply 'new information', and that that 'new information' can and does mechanically and deterministically account for increases in the amount of organismic variety in the taxa of live organisms, that is, an actual increase in actual biological diversity.We can discuss this belief, [and my own, quite different beliefs], just as soon as you can bring yourself to concede that 'natural selection' is not 'random genetic mutation', and that although some people believe that 'random genetic mutation' can and does contribute to the increase in the number of distinguishable bioforms [separate taxa, biodiversity] in the biosphere and/or local ecosystems, you are possibly the last person alive who believes that 'natural selection' does that very same thing. Please admit your mistake, drop your futile gainsaying, and let us move on.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but your obdurate insistence upon a point that has been shown to have no rational support has become a tad irritating. Oh, oh! Do not assume that I am not in that "crowd". As above, I merely note that that there are people in another "crowd" who do believe that random genetic mutations can and do "add info". I've never suggested that I am one of that "crowd". Well, I wouldn't personify "the selective factor", [by which I take you to mean, 'natural selection'], by using words such as "unacceptable". Being an adaptationist, I would prefer, 'maladaptive' traits. I keep on asking you about "NS", and you keep on answering about "RGM".
This is really irritating. [qs] 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.I would call that Genetic Drift. It is possible for it to lead to an increase in biodiversity but improbable.[/quote]Some call it "Drift", some call it "Neutral Theory", all call it "anti-adaptationism"; and it, too, has its own "crowd". You and I may not belong to that "crowd", but it exists, nonetheless.
Just out of curiosity, why do you doubt that without the 'adaptation
component' that random genetic mutation could increase biodiversty, as so many other people seem to believe? And here we go again. I ask a question about phenotypic traits [the only 'traits' that your "NS" can operate on, which was the point in question], and you answer about 'alleles'!! This, 'now you see 'em, now you don't', semantic shell-game you keep playing is really quite annoying.IAC, even if you believe that a given allele equals a particular phenotypic trait [which, empirically-speaking, it does not], you are still left with the same 'survival of the fittest' tautology wrt 'alleles' as you have wrt 'phenotypic traits'. That is, your, "advantageous", is simply a re-phrasing of, "increases [the presence] of the allele in future generations" . And btw, nothing is 'advantageous' until it actually is advantageous. The mere chance that it 'might become' advantageous is not, in itself, advantageous. Not to an 'allele', and not to an organism/phenotype. Meaning that addition is the absence of subtraction, I suppose?! That you 'save' a kitten's life every time that you refrain from drowning it?!?
What would you call a number that is non-zero and non-negative?[/qs]What is the valid analogy that you are suggesting in your comparison of 'number theory' with 'natural selection'? That is, in empirical, scientific, biological terms, what is the difference between -3 rabbits in a copse and -12 rabbits in a copse? In biology, in biodiversity, quantities end at zero and begin at +1. There are no 'negative' numbers. Therefore there are no 'positive' numbers. There are only actual quantities of actual entities. Just, 'numbers'.
That's why mistaking arithmetic/statistics for biology, [which population geneticists make a career out of doing], is such a silly mistake. They are not the same thing, and your analogy is false. It may be fine by you, but it is meaningless since it is unecessary and redundant. Worse, it implies something that simply is not there. That is, 'value judgement' in an abstract notion/physical event [ns]. Just more circular argumentation, i.e., 'begging the question', that you've been offering all along. It just does not fly. Actually, the moment that any novel bioform enters the biosphere, biodiversity is increased, and as soon as that bioform/taxon dies out, biodiversity is decreased, and, as I've told you many, many time, it does not matter whether there is only a single example of that particular bioform, or a million of them.
Nor does it matter wrt to diversity whether or not that novel bioform persists for an hour as one individual, or persists for a million years as a billion [roughly]identical individuals in the same taxon, the novel arrival of the first one increases biodiversity, and the death of the last one decreases biodiversity. Therefore a 'hopeful monster' increases biodiversity, and if it dies shortly after birth then it decreases biodiversity, albeit only for the short time that it formed a part of the biosphere. 'Inheritance of bioform over generations' is an aspect of evolutionary theory, but it does not necessarily, logically, pertain to biological diversity. If a biologically different bioform exists, even for only a minute, you cannot deny that was there, and that simply by virtue of its existence, it increased biodiversity for a time. Hold on. Now you are saying that each new organism constitutes a brand new bioform. Technically, since no two organisms are ever exactly alike, that may be true. But it is useless and unenlightening. The whole point of biodiversity is that some bioforms are essentially different from other bioforms.
Taxonomy is founded upon degrees of 'sameness' and 'difference', and distinctions between basic, fundamental, essential, invariable, constant properties, and accidental, non-essential, variable, inconstant properties. It's a problem that goes back at least as far as Aristotle and haunts taxonomy to this very day. What, for instance, are the essential properties, or qualities, or traits, that define a human being as a human being, as opposed to those which define an orangutan as an orangutan? It is the assumption that human beings are essentially different from orangutans, and other organisms, as a particular, identifiable taxon, thankis to some constant, essential, basic property, that gives the word, 'biodiversity', meaning.
To admit of every trivial difference between individuals is to render 'biodiversity' meaningless. You seem to have completely forgotten about "NS", and to have moved on to "RGM", and examination of 'chance' as the source of increased biodiversity.
And btw, significant changes/differences in bioform IS biodiverity. You are still talking in circles. By what logic, inconceivable to me, did you arrive at that conclusion? So now you are saying that 'positive selection' equals 'chance', aka 'good luck'?!? I guess that would make natural selection a matter of bad luck, wouldn't it? I'm not sure that 'luck' is a scientific phenomenon, however. To the contrary, it would be non-random, since 'natural selection', [as nebulously defined as it is], would, by not acting, insure that the supposed "new information", i.e., the new bioform, would, must, persist, since without 'natural selection' there is nothing to prevent it from persisting. Indeed, because 'ns' is all-encompassing, and refers to any lethal attack on the bioform from any number of randomly appearing environmental agents, it is in fact 'ns' that makes the persistence of a novel bioform, 'a matter of chance', instead of 'a sure thing'. Look, you and I have a much better chance of living to be 100 if some maniac doesn't shoot us tomorrow, but his failure to murder us cannot be considered the cause of our subsequent longevity. Your reasoning is simply illogical. There you go again!! We are taking about "NS" and increased biodiversity. Please stop confusing that subject with that of "RGM" and increased biodiversity. What is there about believing that by attaching a label to something will explain that something, or in any way increase our understanding of that labelled something, is not inane? You keep on reiterating this belief of yours in circular, tautological language, without ever providing any logical line of reasoning to back it up!! You're not getting anywhere by simply repeating yourself, and if that is all you are going to do, then I'm simply going to ignore the issue from now on. I simply have no time for "Is so!/Is not!" gainsaying. What's "speciation event", in your opinion, and what does "NS" have to do with it? Well, that is your opinion of how evolution works, and of course you are welcome to it. Never mind about 'punk eek' for the present.However, when it came to the great plains, biodiversity was not a matter evolution at all. Least of all a matter of bison gradually [well, quite suddenly, I suppose!] mutating into horses, alphabetically. It was a simple matter of people eliminating bison and introducing horses into that ecosystem. So why are you saying this stuff? It's entirely out of left field, completely non sequitur. Well, now that you understand, can we move on? What "conflation"?!?? Well, not being Humpty Dumpty, I believe that there is only one legitimate way in which to use the word, "cause". This one, [taken from The American Heritage Dictionary, although any other dictionary will serve]--cause(kz)n.The producer of an effect, result, or consequence.
The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result.
A basis for an action or response; a reason: The doctor's report gave no cause for alarm.
A goal or principle served with dedication and zeal: “the cause of freedom versus tyranny” (Hannah Arendt).
The interests of a person or group engaged in a struggle: “The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind” (Thomas Paine).
Law.
A ground for legal action.
A lawsuit.
A subject under debate or discussion.
tr.v., caused, caus·ing, caus·es.
To be the cause of or reason for; result in.
To bring about or compel by authority or force: The moderator invoked a rule causing the debate to be endedBold added to pertinent senses of the word. The elimination of 'random chance' at the genomic level as the cause of adaptive evolution at the organismic level. Since that is the be-all and end-all of "the ToE", I'm pretty much saying that "the ToE" would have to be junked entirely, and replaced with a scientific theory of evolution that does not depend on luck as its essential constituent. [qs] 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? [qs] In a word? Autopoiesis.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi martin;You say-- I believe that a scientific mechanism like autopoiesis, like any other scientific causal mechanism, requires a universal, discernible driving _force_ in order to bring it into xistence, and to keep it in effect. Just what that force may be, we'll leave for another time.However, I must disagree with your opinion that such a force has disappeared, and is no longer in effect. In my opinion, natural forces are either eternal, or are integral to any material universe, and come into bing with that universe, and last for as long as it does. I'm partial to the 'eternal' option, actually.With that in mind, I personally believe that biological evolution in our biosphere is just as much in operation today as it ever has been.

HYi q;You say-- What do you mean by "non-random action"? As far as I know, any unintentional, accidental cause is 'random', and every effect brought about by such causes are 'random'.NOTE-- If you adopt the materialist/mechanist/positivist stance, all causes are said to be the direct, determined, linear 'non-random' effects of mechanically determined, 'non-random'cause--and so on. Where everything is mechanical, nothing is truly random, and if nothing is truly random, nothing is truly non-random, either, because the word has lost all real meaning, and is just a useful inanity.Therefore, if you want to use the words, 'random' and 'non-random, you must either abandon materialist/mechanist determinism, or, change the word 'random' to 'coincidental', wherebye one mechanically determined effect is only coincidentally correlated to some other mechanically determined but mechanically separate cause and effect.That is, in fact, exactly what darwinists have done ever since Fisher, claiming that the only randomness encountered in their kind of adaptationist evolution was the coincidental quality wherebye the presumed determinist mechanics of genetic mutation->phenotypic trait and the presumed determinist mechanics of all environmental events were only positively correlated to each other [adaptive] by lucky coincidence. They express this as "random with regard to fitness", where, in this case at least, they intend 'fitness' to mean 'adaptedness'.
Basing a scientific case on coincidence, even calling it 'randomness' [a quality that really doesn't exist, according to materialist/mechanist/positivist/darwinist doctrine], is no better than calling it 'luck', or some other [as far as empirical science is concerned], mystical inanity, i.e., superstion. And basing your definition of 'natural selection' on the determinist understand of 'random' leaves it equally inane, equally superstitious.Therefore, like it or not, if you want to use your 'non-random action' phrasing then you must abandon materialist physical/mechanical determinism as far as RMNS is concerned. If you wish to retain 'non-random action' with regard to environment/organism interaction, its true that mechanical , ergo determined but unintentional, events happen everyday--goats tumble from precipices and die, fish die when waterholes dry up, trees get blown down, and on and on. But claiming that such events represent,
"The non-random action of the suite of environmental factors (“selection pressures”) that affect a population." is essentially saying nothing at all. Its just 'noise'. Every event in the world can apply under that heading, so instead of saying "non-random action" just say that, IYO, "NS" is arithmetically determined physical effect on a statistic [a local number, a 'population'] mechanically determined by "a suite" of imparticular local physical causes acting in a strictly mechanical [albeit accidental, in the sense of unintentional and unforeseeable, and largely too irregular and anomalous to be predictable; i.e., stochastic, random] fashion. Ooops, there goes non-random causation, and with it, non-random effect. Unless you can defend the determinist position that everything that happens, has to happen, because everything is inevitable, immutable, and unstoppable. A clock-work universe.I believe that quantum field theory and its alocality has put the materialist/mechanical/determinist view to bed for good and all, but not being a quantum physicist, nor anything remotely close to it, I can't do any more to defend this indeterminist universe than a materialist can to defend his/her determinist universe. And this is the point at which all discussions of "NS" annd "RM", IOW, darwinism, seem to founder. If determinism is true, in the mechanist absolute and total sense, then there is absolutely no sense in debating anything; it is merely another meaningless, absurd something that we are compelled to do, like puppets on a string. That's the problem. The whole of existence is subsumed under your definition, and that which is everything, is indefinite, and using the indefinite to create a definition is, to say the least, unhelpful.You still have to find a way to define "NS" in a way that means more than, say , "The Environment", "Nature", "The gods", "GOD", "The Good Fairy","Chance", "Luck", "The Fates", "a suite of environmental factors", or "The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster" already do.I'll await your next formulation.

Hi q;You say; Funny, that's exactly what I've been saying about your "NS", and your attempted 'definition' of it. I, on the other hand, expected no better than what you provided. Why should I do any such thing before you make scientific sense of your "Natural Selection". After all that is what our debate is all about, so don't try to shift the burden onto my shoulders. After we've disposed of your "mechanism", NS, [that is,either you make science out of it, or you discard it as a load of pretentious bafflegab, or you quit in frustration]then maybe I'll tell you my mechanism. Hint-- lamarckism was its scientific ancestor, and its philosophical roots go all the way back to Heraklitus. And that is all I'm going to say until you deal satisfactorily [as far as I'm concerned] with "NS". That is, when you demonstrate reasonably that natural selection is more than an inane 'catch-phrase'--the 'scientific' equivalent of a bumper-sticker.