Posted on 08/21/2006 6:57:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Were the Theory of Evolution even remotely like the grotesque caricature presented by various creationist and intelligent design websites, there would be no debate. It is pernicious that one of the most elegant works of science should be so routinely misrepresented. Before one can evaluate a theory's merits, he is obliged to at least understand what it actually does -- and does not -- state. Failing to understand something before attempting debate against it is absolute folly. Therefore, we offer the following:
1. In every generation, some individuals of a species fail to reproduce. Whether due to biological inadequacy or other mishap, their genetic material is dropped from the species' gene pool. Each new generation is the product of only those individuals that reproduce successfully. ("Success" is a relative term; differential success, like failure, can effect the genetic future of a species.)
2. By eliminating the genetic material of unsuccessful individuals and preserving the rest, nature imposes a filter -- successful reproduction -- on the genetic material of all living things. Because each generation is the result of this filter, the "genetic inventory" of each generation always differs from the one before it. Creationists call this "micro evolution." Please note: individuals never change; they either reproduce or they don't. It's the genetic inventory of a species that changes over time.
3. Mutations occur with virtually every act of reproduction. All genetic material, whether mutated or precisely copied, is subject to nature's filter. If a mutation is neutral or beneficial, or maybe not too harmful, it can endure as part of that species' genetic inventory; otherwise it's filtered out. Mutations that were originally neutral may turn out to be useful or harmful due to changing environmental circumstances, and will be filtered accordingly. If useful, a mutated characteristic can become prevalent within a few generations, and may seem to have wondrously appeared in response to an environmental challenge. In reality, a previously irrelevant feature has become advantageous.
4. Severe environmental changes can enhance the filter's effect, by eliminating numerous individuals that have become inadequate, leaving relatively few individuals whose genetic material will determine the species' future. This will cause rapid changes in the species' genetic inventory. Over thousands of generations, the genetic inventory of a species can become so changed that, by comparison with ancestors in the fossil record, we observe that a new species has evolved from the ancestral version. (Creationists call this "macro evolution" and deny that it occurs.) Conversely, during long periods of environmental stability, there may be only "routine" filtering for continued fitness, and no obvious speciation.
5. As successful species multiply and spread out over a large area, groups can become isolated, forming separate breeding populations. Over great periods of time, depending on environmental factors and the occurrence of mutations, a separate group can (if it doesn't go extinct) evolve into a new species; or it can remain relatively unchanged. The result may be a multitude of species (some living, some extinct) that can be traced to their common ancestral group. Over time, each new species can repeat this process, causing increasingly diverse species to radiate from a common origin.
Commentary: From our point of view, the filter (nature's evolution algorithm) can result in an enormous amount of waste. Uncountable legions of creatures are conceived, but never survive long enough to reproduce. What we might regard as good and useful is sometimes filtered out along with the bad. But the rule is not what we might like: "Everything nice will be preserved." Instead, it is strikingly simple -- as natural laws must be -- functioning with inexorable predictability, with no subjective judgments built in. Simply stated, the rule is this: "Only that which successfully breeds can produce players in the next round." Therefore, when the avalanche is falling, there's no soft voice that says: "Oh, this one has such nice genes, let's whisk it out of harm's way." The evolution algorithm is marvelously elegant in its operation -- but it's not what we would expect of an intelligent designer.
Pardon my cynicism, but I bet we never see such a thing. It's much too conventient to have an amorphous collection of hypotheses ... as long as your audience is scientifcally illiterate and doesn't demand detailed predictions, tests, falsification criteria, etc
For example, is there any way in which Behe-style ID differs from standard biology? He accepts common descent; AFAIK the differnce is that he seems to think that blood clotting requires a miracle.
And at the same time, there are the creationists who just *know* that ape-kind and humand-kind are spearate creations, but can't agree on where to draw the line.
Well, you should have tagged along with the rest of us who went down to Banos and Riobamba to see Tungurahua in action! Incredible!
Also a bit hairy--but not as bad as the bus to Quayaquil. Those guys make the French seem like good drivers.
Individuals don't evolve - populations do.
From within a population, individuals reproduce.
Every individual is different from all others.
Some individuals reproduce more prolifically than others due to a combination of both their individual difference and their individual ability to adapt to circumstantial conditions and changes in their environment.
Over many generations, a population evolves as a result of adaptation to this process of individual reproduction, variation, and natural selection.
The gradual changes include mutational genetic drift of the whole population as well as physical adaptations.
Whenever circumstances cause a segment of a population to be isolated from the main breeding pool, each individual group will continue to adapt to different environmental pressures in different ways.
The smaller splinter group usually feels greater evolutionary pressure due to the combination of smaller gene pool and greater likelihood of being forced to adapt to different climate, food source, and predator pressures while the larger main group tends to have the greater gene pool and more familiar environment.
If the two groups stay separated long enough, the genetic mutations will affect one or both of the groups to the point that they are no longer capable of cross breeding should they ever come back into contact with one another.
Once this occurs, they are two different species and there is nothing to stop them from gradually evolving more differently over the millenniums.
OMG!!! ROTFLMAO..... Just read the "Troll's Toolkit"... what a beautiful piece of work.... kudos!!!
The time stamp says 12:48:33 PM EDT. Gimme a break!
Not to mention I get too lazy to put those </sarcasm> tags everywhere.
So true. Such people seem to forget that God gave us a brain and I like to think he expected us to use it.
As long as we are picking nits, I might point out that there could be alleles other than first generation mutations that are unique to an individual.
Interesting article. I am not an evolution/ID scholar, but there are some issues IMHO:
1. Who invented this scheme, from where did it derive?
2. How did life begin?
3. In commentary
“Therefore, when the avalanche is falling, there's no soft voice that says: "Oh, this one has such nice genes, let's whisk it out of harm's way."”
Seems a bit presumptuous, how do you know?
4. In commentary
“The evolution algorithm is marvelously elegant in its operation -- but it's not what we would expect of an intelligent designer.”
How do you know what the IDer had in mind? What was your expectation? Most things in this world, including humans, are flawed.
Are these really flaws? Why would you expect the process of plants and animals adapting to changing circumstances not to have some flaws?
Why cannot evolution exist within the framework of an Intelligent Designer?
FWIIW, schu
Aye! There's the rub! Mine says 10:48:33 AM MDT.
How can anything NOT be consistent with the unspecified work of an unnamed entity having no specified capabilities, limitations, motives, or location in space or time?
Perhaps the angels did it.
2. How did life begin?
Perhaps the angels did it.
3. In commentary:
“Therefore, when the avalanche is falling, there's no soft voice that says: 'Oh, this one has such nice genes, let's whisk it out of harm's way.'”
Seems a bit presumptuous, how do you know?
You're right. I wasn't there.
4. In commentary:
“The evolution algorithm is marvelously elegant in its operation -- but it's not what we would expect of an intelligent designer.”
How do you know what the IDer had in mind? What was your expectation? Most things in this world, including humans, are flawed.
You're right. I can't read the mind of the designer.
Are these really flaws? Why would you expect the process of plants and animals adapting to changing circumstances not to have some flaws?
You're right. Who are we to know?
Why cannot evolution exist within the framework of an Intelligent Designer?
I guess it can. Besides, why are there still monkeys?
Unionized demiurges, not angels. Disease we got from the fast food wrappers they tossed during their lunch breaks.
Especially if He doensn't have to be necessary, He only has to be unfalsifiable.
Wow, that was you, in the green crushed velvet number?
Next year, I think we should put our nom de FReeps on our name-badges, I can't believe how many of us were there. And next time, I'm going to insist on being reseated if I get stuck on the archaeologists' table, those folks don't know their limits!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.