Explaining Darwinism to an Accountant

[The_Barbarian]

“no intermediate stage can be harmful to the organism”? I watched (on television) a wild animal trying to get at a land dwelling turtle. It had a complete shell and since no obvious point of entry could be found, it was left alone. The partial shell turtles would have solved this problem. The exposed part of the body would lead to good eating.

Hmmm… so the argument is that armor could never have evolved, since partial armor would be useless…

Are you very sure of that, Ed?

 

[hecd2]

Incidentally, one of the few major groups for which no transitions were known was turtles. There were some hints, but no real transitionals.

Then…
**The unearthing of three 220m-year-old fossils in China has solved the enduring mystery of how the turtle got its shell.

The ancient remains are the first evidence palaeontologists have of a species of turtle that is in the process of evolving a shell, revealing for the first time how it happened.

Fossil hunters uncovered the remains of three remarkably intact adults in Guizhou province last year. Each has characteristics that have never been seen in turtles before, including teeth and an incomplete upper shell, according to a report in the journal Nature.**
guardian.co.uk/science/2008/nov/26/earliest-turtle-fossil-shell

The paper describing this was in last week’s Nature:
Li et al, *An Ancestral turtle from the Late Triassic of southwestern China, *Nature 456, 497 - 501 (2008). The newly described species, dated at 220 million years BP, shows a number of transitional features including teeth (absent in extant turtles), partial carapace (shell), long tail, sacral ribs free and not part of carapace, different number of phalanges in some digits. On the basis of the morphology. Li et al place turtles in the diapsid reptiles and reach the conclusion that the popular press have latched onto, viz that the partial carapace is a primitive feature transitional between ancestors of turtles and extant turtles with fully developed carapaces. Based on the complete plastron and partial carapace, they also conclude that turtles evolved in an aquatic environment.

However, in the same issue of Nature, Robert Reisz and Jason Head from the University of Toronto disagree (Reisz and Head, *Turtle origins out to sea, *Nature 456, 450 - 451 (2008) ). They suggest that the partial carapace is a consequence of secondary loss of a full carapace based on the hypothesis that turtles originally evolved on land and that this fossil species represents an early radiation from land to water environments with the consequent partial loss of the carapace, similar to what we see in extant aquatic turtles. It might be derived rather than primitive.

It will be interesting to see where further analysis and the discovery of further fossil material leads. for the time being, I’d say Li et al have the edge, because of their access to the fossil material, the time they have been studying this fossil, and because free ribs (fused to form part of carapace in extant turtles) and lack of carapace seem to be primitive rather than derived conditions. Molecular data supports the idea that turtles are related to diapsid reptiles.

Needless to say, Ed’s suggestion that these fossils might represent “deformed” turtles is ridiculous.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Ender]

In fact, it seems to me that you have created confusion where none need exist.
…
what exactly is it that you object in the instances of, say, Carsonella or Pederpes?

As I said several pages ago, I object to this claim:

• “It is a genuine transitional on its way from bacterium to organelle.”*

Rossum: I will allow that the original statement could have been phrased better, but I think you are reading too much into loose phraseology.

If all you meant was that carsonella is by definition a transitional because it has characteristics of both bacteria and organelles then, as Rossum commented, the statement was poorly phrased as “on its way” implies something you cannot know which is whether carsonella was the actual ancestor of a particular organelle or an evolutionary dead end. The word transitional applies in either case.

Ender

 

[hecd2]

As I said several pages ago, I object to this claim:

• “It is a genuine transitional on its way from bacterium to organelle.”*

Rossum: I will allow that the original statement could have been phrased better, but I think you are reading too much into loose phraseology.

If all you meant was that carsonella is by definition a transitional because it has characteristics of both bacteria and organelles then, as Rossum commented, the statement was poorly phrased as “on its way” implies something you cannot know which is whether carsonella was the actual ancestor of a particular organelle or an evolutionary dead end. The word transitional applies in either case.

I disagree. There is very strong evidence for the bacterial ancestry of certain organelles. The idea that these organelles originated as endosymbiotic bacteria is well evidenced and fully accepted. Here, in Carsonella, we see a bacterium in a transitional state between normal endosymbiotic bacteria and organelles. It seems perfectly justifiable to me to say that it is “on its way to becoming an organelle”, which is what will happen if it continues on the the same trajectory of loss of function and bias of nucleotide composition that we observe in it today. Whether it will get there or not depends on the continued survival of the psyllids and their descendants. I didn’t claim that it would get there, but the claim that it is on its way is perfectly justified.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Organelle_transitional.htm

 

[The_Barbarian]

In fact, the evolution of endosymbiosis has been directly observed.

gate.net/~rwms/EvoEndosymbiotOrigins.html

 

[Ender]

It seems perfectly justifiable to me to say that it is “on its way to becoming an organelle”, which is what will happen if it continues on the the same trajectory of loss of function and bias of nucleotide composition that we observe in it today.

Clearly there is a “trajectory” that will take carsonella from its current form to an organelle. I wonder, though, why you think you can anticipate its evolutionary direction given that a fundamental tenet of Darwinism is that evolution is undirected. I don’t suggest that carsonella won’t ultimately become an organelle - I am quite comfortable with directed evolution, it is Darwinism that rejects it.

Ender

 

[The_Barbarian]

I am quite comfortable with directed evolution, it is Darwinism that rejects it.

Darwin discovered that it was directed. That is what natural selection does. Some are uncomfortable with the idea that God could created a universe in which natural laws would do His will.

I don’t have a problem with it, myself.

 

[edwest2]

The average person views textbook biology as the whole answer. A little engine called random mutation and natural selection spits out endless variations and some of them just happen to get selected. Looking beyond science, as the Church teaches, tells us that nature has no will or intelligence and it can’t guide anything. Which leads people like Father Coyne to say complete nonsense like even God could not have been certain that man would have appeared.

But, the loud noise being generated by the secular media (via Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and others) is, you and a rock share a common ancestor. The earth is billions of years old. And people wonder why Christians question not just evolutionary theory but the motives of those promoting it.

“We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” Richard Dawkins. He blames science for leading him to this conclusion. And too many people are listening to him because the secular media dislikes Christianity and prefers hedonism and atheism.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ender]

I am quite comfortable with directed evolution, it is Darwinism that rejects it.

Darwin discovered that it was directed. That is what natural selection does. Some are uncomfortable with the idea that God could created a universe in which natural laws would do His will.

I don’t have a problem with it, myself.

Outcome … the question is whether the outcome is directed or simply random. Darwinism - at least the way it is interpreted by most Darwinists - assumes that the evolutionary path of any organism is undirected and that chance determines the result.

If evolution is merely chance then there is no reason to believe that carsonella will eventually evolve into an organelle simply because it is believed that it, or something like it, has taken that path before.

Ender

 

[The_Barbarian]

The average person views textbook biology as the whole answer.

To what, Ed? I think most people are too smart to think it’s the whole answer to “What is man?”

A little engine called random mutation and natural selection spits out endless variations and some of them just happen to get selected.

Yep. God’s creation is a lot more amazing than ID/creationists would like.

Looking beyond science, as the Church teaches, tells us that nature has no will or intelligence and it can’t guide anything.

And yet natural selection makes populations more and more fit. Amazing, um?

Which leads people like Father Coyne to say complete nonsense like even God could not have been certain that man would have appeared.

Do you think God was certain that man would disobey Him, and bring all that trouble on us?

But, the loud noise being generated by the secular media (via Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and others) is, you and a rock share a common ancestor.

Looks like someone’s led you down the path again, Ed. Evolutionary theory says nothing about that. God did say that the Earth brought forth living things, but I don’t think it’s safe to say we are descended from rocks.

The earth is billions of years old.

So your Pope has said. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

And people wonder why Christians question not just evolutionary theory but the motives of those promoting it.

Most of us don’t, Ed. As Pope John Paul II remarked, truth cannot contradict truth.

 

[Namesake]

The average person views textbook biology as the whole answer.

That isn’t supported by the evidence. Most people in the USA do not accept evolution. You should check your facts.

 

[The_Barbarian]

That isn’t supported by the evidence. Most people in the USA do not accept evolution. You should check your facts.

For the first time, two years ago, 51% of people in the Gallup Poll on evolution accepted it as true. But about two-thirds of them said that God was responsible for it.

 

[dcdurel]

"The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems."Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, professor of bioorganic, Moscow State University; member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

 

[hecd2]

Clearly there is a “trajectory” that will take carsonella from its current form to an organelle. I wonder, though, why you think you can anticipate its evolutionary direction given that a fundamental tenet of Darwinism is that evolution is undirected. I don’t suggest that carsonella won’t ultimately become an organelle - I am quite comfortable with directed evolution, it is Darwinism that rejects it.

Ender

You seem to misunderstand the nature of Darwinian Natural Selection. Evolution is not an entirely random and unpredictable process. For example, functions which are fundamental to the functioning of life are preserved - some genes fundamental to cell functioning are remarkably similar across widely different organisms as a consequence of purifying selection. On the other hand superfluous functions are lost - we can predict with some degree of certainty that animals that take to living in the dark will not only lose their sight, but over time will lose their eyes and we will find that genes relevant to sight will become broken. This process can be observed even in groups that have relatively recently taken to living in the dark, so that they are merely subspecies of a species which is generally normally sighted. Furthermore once a function has been lost, there is generally no easy way short of evolving that function from scratch all over again - a process which is very much slower than losing the function in the first place. (The exception to this is where a function can be acquired by one or two relatively simple mutations in a single gene in species with very high population numbers and short generation times)

In this case Carsonella (the genus name in the binomial classification is normally capitalised, by the way), has given up almost all of its genome to the host cell. What I said was that, if that process continues, it will become an organelle. That is so. Will it continue? Well, it is more likely to do so than to recover the huge host of functions that it has lost. Really, for C rudii, there is only one viable trajectory. This doesn’t mean that there is the hand of some external agent pushing it that way, which is what I think you mean by “directed”.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Organelle_transitional.htm

 

[hecd2]

Outcome … the question is whether the outcome is directed or simply random. Darwinism - at least the way it is interpreted by most Darwinists - assumes that the evolutionary path of any organism is undirected and that chance determines the result.

You are conflating the term “undirected” with an incorrect suggestion that evolutionary processes are purely random. Schoenborn made that mistake too. Natural selection imprints information about the environment on the phenotype of organisms, and provides information about the functionality of different genes in related populations. That is not purely random.

If evolution is merely chance…

It isn’t

…then there is no reason to believe that carsonella will eventually evolve into an organelle simply because it is believed that it, or something like it, has taken that path before.

See previous post.

Alec

 

[hecd2]

"The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems."Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, professor of bioorganic, Moscow State University; member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

Isn’t that the guy who started out doing some sensible science and has ended up in the backwater of alternative medicine, homeopathy, and the “memory of water”? It’s that sort of stuff, not neo-Darwinism, that seriously hampers the development of science.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[The_Barbarian]

Outcome … the question is whether the outcome is directed or simply random.

Natural selection directs outcomes in populations. It is not simply random.

Darwinism - at least the way it is interpreted by most Darwinists - assumes that the evolutionary path of any organism is undirected and that chance determines the result.

No. You’ve simply misunderstand what Darwinists think about it.

If evolution is merely chance then there is no reason to believe that carsonella will eventually evolve into an organelle simply because it is believed that it, or something like it, has taken that path before.

But it isn’t merely chance, so there’s no problem here.

 

[Ender]

Evolution is not an entirely random and unpredictable process.

There are two steps to Darwinian evolution: random mutations which are purely chance and natural selection which is a mix of chance and determinism.

In this case Carsonella (the genus name in the binomial classification is normally capitalised, by the way), has given up almost all of its genome to the host cell. What I said was that, if that process continues, it will become an organelle.

You were a bit more definitive than this: your comment was that it would continue on that path: “on its way to becoming an organelle.”

Will it continue? Well, it is more likely to do so than to recover the huge host of functions that it has lost. Really, for C rudii, there is only one viable trajectory.

This is where it gets more interesting. If there is only one viable trajectory then the outcome is not determined by chance but is predetermined - the game is rigged, the dice are loaded.

This doesn’t mean that there is the hand of some external agent pushing it that way, which is what I think you mean by “directed”.

I don’t believe that deterministic (directed) evolution requires active interference; it can also be brought about by the predetermination of what trajectories are viable. This is what I find significant in your comment predicting how Carsonella will evolve.

Ender

 

[The_Barbarian]

There are two steps to Darwinian evolution: random mutations which are purely chance and natural selection which is a mix of chance and determinism.

Neither of these is strictly true, and the latter seems to be completely false. First, the likelihood of any particular mutation is different than that for others, and this can be studied and determined. The “randomness” is not in the rate of such mutations, but rather in the way they appear. Rolling dice is random, but if you roll two dice, you will find some scores appear more often than others.

For the latter, I don’t know of anything random about natural selection. Can you tell us about it?

You were a bit more definitive than this: your comment was that it would continue on that path: “on its way to becoming an organelle.”

It is indeed. Whether or not it makes it depends on a number of things.

This is where it gets more interesting. If there is only one viable trajectory then the outcome is not determined by chance but is predetermined - the game is rigged, the dice are loaded.

It would seem so, if you confused the outcome with the means of achieving it. When animals went back into the sea, the outcome (streamlined bodies, fins or flippers) was pretty much determined. But how it was achieved varied a lot, depening on what variations were possible for that particular population.

 

[Ender]

Neither of these is strictly true

“At the first step, consisting of all the processes leading to the production of a new zygote (including meiosis, gamete formation, and fertilization), new variation is produced. Chance rules supreme at this step, except that the nature of the changes at a given gene locus is strongly constrained.” Ernst Mayr What Evolution Is, p120

For the latter, I don’t know of anything random about natural selection. Can you tell us about it?

“This second step is a mixture of chance and determination. Clearly, those individuals with characteristics providing the greatest adaptedness to the current circumstances have the greatest probability of survival. However, there are also many chance elimination factors, so that there is no pure determination even at this step. Everything is somewhat probabilistic.” Ibid

This stuff seems pretty basic; I thought you would have known it … but I get the feeling your objections are more personal than professional. When you make an intelligent objection I’ll be happy to reply but your petulant carping is uninteresting and not worth the time it takes to respond.

Ender