Slashdot Mirror
Shapes of Time
Many popular books on evolution ignore or downplay the role of growth and development, of ontogeny. But in Shapes of Time Kenneth McNamara's focus is on heterochrony, on evolutionary changes in the timing of developmental features and in rates of growth. As he puts it:
"evolution is not only about genetics and natural selection. Just as crucial are the changes in the timing and rate of development, with the three, genetics, heterochrony, and natural selection, forming an interdependent evolutionary triumvirate."Heterochrony constrains natural selection; it also provides it with raw material, allowing small genetic changes to have big phenotypic effects.
Ideas about the relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny (evolutionary history) have changed over the last few centuries, with notions of recapitulation and paedomorphosis going in and out of fashion. McNamara's outline of this covers Ernst Haeckel, Karl Ernst von Baer, and Walter Garstang, ending with Stephen Jay Gould, from whose Ontogeny and Phylogeny he takes the terminology for different kinds of heterochrony. The basic division is into paedomorphosis (less growth) and peramorphosis (more growth). These can each take three forms: paedomorphosis can be the result of progenesis (finishing early), neoteny (slower growth rate), and postdisplacement (starting late), while peramorphosis can result from predisplacement (starting early), acceleration (greater growth rate), and hypermorphosis (finishing late).
That's a lot of technical terms, but don't let them scare you away - the bulk of Shapes of Time consists of lively and engaging examples of heterochrony, taken from across the animal kingdom, from dogs and humans to invertebrates (McNamara is an invertebrate paleontologist), which help both to explain those terms and to fix them in the memory. But first McNamara presents a little bit of developmental biology, covering the stages of neofertilization, differentiation and growth, touching on Hox genes and morphogens, and mechanisms of organ and appendage formation. This is enough background for the higher level (zoological and ecological and paleontological) survey that follows, but may be frustratingly slender for those after more, after a better understanding of the developmental biology behind heterochrony.
McNamara begins his tour of heterochrony with dog varieties - even looking at paedomorphosis in depictions of Snoopy in Peanuts cartoons - and examples from insects and salamanders. Heterochrony is "all-pervasive" in the generation of sexual dimorphism, from simple size differences to extreme cases with males that are little more than "parasitic" sperm sacs. And heterochrony can play a key role in speciation, often combining with environmental gradients to separate populations; examples include Darwin's finches, brachiopods, and bushbucks.
Are some forms of heterochrony more common than others in particular lineages? In some cases paedomorphism seems unusually common, notably among the amphibians (axolotls are paedomorphic salamanders, for example); McNamara also looks at paedomorphism in lungfish, cats, and various invertebrates and at connections with genome and cell size. In other cases peramorphosis seems to dominate: a dramatic example is the combination of hypermorphosis and acceleration that produced increasing size in dinosaur lineages, but Cope's rule suggests that size tends to increase more generally. More common is the mixing of peramorphism and paedomorphism, acting on different features and subject to "trade-offs": examples here come from the evolution of wings (and of flightlessness) and tetrapod limbs, with a brief glance at the origin of turtle shells.
Heterochronic mechanisms enable the adaptation of life cycles to different environments: hypermorphosis and neoteny are more common in stable environments ("K-selected") and progenesis and acceleration in unpredictable ones ("r-selected"). Heterochronic changes can be driven by biological "arms-races", with a clear example in the evolution of sea urchins in response to predation by cassids (marine snails). And heterochrony has played a key role in human evolution, where McNamara highlights peramorphic features against a tradition which has stressed paedomorphism.
McNamara sometimes appears to reduce the significance of ontogeny in evolution to heterochrony, when it is actually considerably broader. There are ontogenetic constraints and processes other than those of timing and rate: biophysical and biochemical limits, ways in which novel proteins or cell types arise, and self-assembly and exploration allowing "adaptive" development, to list just a few. If there is a "triumvirate" that rules evolution it has to be "genetics, ontogeny, and natural selection". Still, there's no doubting that heterochrony is one of the key links between ontogeny and phylogeny - at least not after reading Shapes of Time.
You might like to check out Danny's other evolution, developmental biology, and popular science reviews. You can purchase Shapes of Time from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
So rosanne developed her appearance as a Defense mechanism!
Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
Too bad there is no such device that could speed time up and prove once and for all that macro evolution really occurs or not.
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
...the initial conditions cannot be satisfied. I really don't want to start a religious flame war here so please don't reply if that's what you intend.
The issue here is that, like many complex physical systems, you require initial conditions to define the evolutionary starting point which macroevolution doesn't consider. It is, however, adept at describing the physical system itself. I believe that the nature of this must be metaphysical in nature. What mechanism is unknown, but again, just MHO.
Oh and btw. If you got scared please read this afterwards.
The shape of time is a hypercube--a cube in the geometric 4th dimension. I wonder if they will make a Rubik's hypercube someday.
And how long will it take to solve? (without taking off and rearranging the stickers?)
Repeat after me: There is no such thing as "macroevolution." Biological evolution is change in the gene pool of a population over time. That's all that it is. That this happens is an undisputable matter of fact. The only difference between what fundamentalists call "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is the amount of time that evolutionary effects take to manifest themselves. The physical process itself is the same.
If I stand on one side of my living room and walk heel-to-toe, I will eventually end up at the other side of my living room. If I stand in San Francisco and walk heel-to-toe in an easterly direction, I will eventually end up in New York. Fundamentalists would call the former activity "microwalking" and the latter "macrowalking", but it should be perfectly obvious that the process in both cases is exactly the same; the difference is in the scale of magnitude.
"Macroevolution" is a fictional concept invented by fundamentalists who have discovered (to their chagrin) that biological evolution cannot be honestly denied, but cannot be allowed to be the explanation for the biodiversity on life on Earth. It's just too bad for the fundamentalists that their basic premise (that evolution is incompatible with religion) is one of the most outlandish and potentially destructive lies ever told.
I hope this doesn't have anything to do with the Time Cube guy, he creeps me out.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
Yes the stuff in the air and soil is still changing but in non-living configurations, the change is not fast enough to satisfy the energy potentials that still remain.
-OP
Biological evolution is change in the gene pool of a population over time. That's all that it is
You seem to have a narrow view of evolution derived from the classical genetics viewpoint circa 1930. As someone who has written papers on molecular evolution, I could equally claim that "changes in the gene pool" is a fictious concept because from the molecular viewpoint it is obviously just DNA mutations. And a chemist looking at the situation could say "no, it is just chemical reactions" and the physicist could say "no, it is just subatomic interactions". Science works on many different levels. Like the story of the blind men and the elephant, the true story can only be put together from integrating the various viewpoints.
Nope.
If you read Wolfram's "A new kind of science" you'll see that behaviour of systems like this is typically independent of initial conditions. It's the rule that counts. Of couse when a lot of rules are competing in parallel then the most efficient will win, so presumably DNA has itself evolved so that typical mutations are viable.
For example, there's the idea Dawkins called "evolution of evolvability" - certain body plans might be more adaptable than others, allowing some phyla to radiate more rapidly (e.g. insects). That's not part of classical natural selection, but it's probably an important process.
Also, long term trends might be influenced by catastrophes. A sudden environmental change might alter the rules of selection overnight. You might see pruning of groups which can't survive meteor impacts.
That's not to say that natural selection isn't the most important part of evolution. It's the only way that complex adaptations can evolve.
The review is interesting but it falls in the beginning and end into a fallacy. Why this stupid Triumvirate? Are we talking about Evolution or fighting factions in Roman Senate? Considering the way the analyst glued to this term, soon we will see people discussing who's the Caeser and Pompei of Evolution, or when we catch Emperor Augustus...
There is something very dangerous on using and fixing the attention to certain terms that are simply used as metaphoras. We have an example right here, where we already see two "triumvirates" fighting each other. Frankly I believe that the original author was sincerly remarking the importance of his ideas in the frame of three important conditions for Evolution. However the reviewer made a serious mistake on catching up with this. Whatever happens in Evolution, surely is not a triumvirate and we may be quite far from it. I think that the idea of the book is utterly incomplete, but I have to read the book to be sure for that. The reviewer sincerly makes a bigger mistake on remarking three important factors of Evolution and forgetting that this is too overclassical and artificial from the very start. One cannot simply put three simple conditions to explain all the complexity of the evolutionary process. While it is important to simplify the fundamental conditions of Evolution, I think that we cannot hold up to "Three conditions". That also sounds to much as an revival of the traditionalist "Three Laws" of Physics. This sounds too human to be scientific and too subjective to accept.
> If there is a "triumvirate" that rules
> evolution it has to be "genetics, ontogeny,
> and natural selection"
On the other hand, ontogeny is also genetic. Even the development constrained (or encouraged) by environmental conditions are responses that pushes the organism down an existing genetic pathway. Heterochrony is an important aspect of evolution, but it is an aspect of genetic adaptation, and cannot stand alone (although I agree that it can be singled out for purposes of study).
Natural selection acting on genetic (or, better yet, phenotypic) variation is the whole of evolution (and here I'm considering the neutral network stuff to also be phenotypic as it is a product of the genome's position in a topoloical structure).
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
--The Sphinx
To see where the reviewer, and most modern criticism against evolutionary biology, comes from -- see The Dialectical Biologist.
I stopped reading the popular criticism after coming to the opinion that there are two different religions that have dogmatic problems with evolution -- Xians/Muslims and Marxists.
I think I understand why the Xians have problems accepting that some (tendencies to) behavior are built into humans. I never read up enough on Marxism to understand their problem. I leave that to people with more religious needs.
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe evolutionary biologists first defined the concept of macro-evolution as you describe it. It is not a fictional concept, it is a misunderstood concept. To go a step further micro and macro evolution DO require seperate proofs. It's like an inductive proof, proving n for 1 and 2 is not a proof for n+1. Macro evolution is the latter and is quite difficult to prove or disprove in biology. A person could take micro evolution as an obvious fact and still reject macro evolution as improbable without deserving the fundamentalist label.
The place is called Johns Hopkins University...
I have a better idea. Scientists have literally compiled a mountain of evidence that evolution has occured.
Why don't one of you creationists come up with one tinsey, tiny little bit of hard evidence showing that ANY god(s) exist...
The key is that the difference between micro and macro evolution is just "by definition". There is nothing that occurs in the *process* of macroevolution that does not occur in microevolution. They are physically identical processes.
Yes, but macro evolutionary changes need to have a path of micro evolutionary steps that wouldn't kill a transitionary organism. To use the micro/macro stepping analogy, just cause you can take a number of steps and reach New York, does not mean you can use that same process to reach a further location like London, you'd drown on the way. The extra proof required, and that is difficult to provide in biology is that a path exists for micro evolution to give rise to the macro evolutionary differences in today's ecosystem.
Though maybe the above post doesn't deserve a mod up, I don't think it deserved to modded down. Though I disagree with the post, opinions ought not be modded down just because the moderator disagrees.
Well said, thank you. :)
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
Again, this is a false dichotomy. Macroevolutionary changes are only detectable after the fact. They are microevoultionary changes, physically. There is no "jump" over an ocean.
Humans determine when a "macroevoltuionary" event has occured in hindsight. Nature does not care whether we deem it a "micro" or "macro" evolution. As far as the physical process is concerned, there is nothing but microevolitionary changes or, in your analogy "footsteps".
There are no oceans seperating a mutated child from it's parent. The only way oceans occur is after the fact, when ancestors of the new orgamism die out.
I think you have oversimplified the difference between the two. Your analogy is appealing at first, but it doesn't correspond well to evolutionary processes. The fact the random (or manufactured) genetic mutations can produce changes within species is easily proven. We can can observe the process just as we can observe your walking across your living room.
But can we observe speciation or massive shifts from one type of organism to another? No. We know how you you could walk from SF to NY, but exactly how does a dinosaur become a bird or a monkey become a man? There are vague and general theories, but the case is far from closed. Evolutionists respond that we shouldn't expect to see this happening because of the vast amounts of time required, when pressed on this issue.
Now, I may have given away my bias, but I'm trying to be objective here. On the one hand, we understand the process very well, we can observe it in nature, and reproduce it in the lab. On the other hand, we have some "what if's", "maybe's", and such. Nothing observable. I think that warrants some special care to distinguish between the two. Economics on any scale uses concepts such as supply and demand, the rationality of individual choice, etc. but I had to take a microeconomics class as well as a macroeconomics clss. Apparently, it is still important to know the difference between the two.
You're asking for a logic-based answer from faith-based people. Ain't gonna happen. Like squeezing an apple and expecting orange juice. Your questions will be asnwered by what their faith indicates appropriate, not by what their residual logic centers would like them to say.
An irreconcilable difference at the foundation of both parties in the discussion. Would be a non-productive discussion.
You can see the evidence for "macroevolution," if you insist on defining it as something different from "microevolution," quite plainly in the fossil record for large organisms; you can also see it on a human timescale in small organisms. (There exist, e.g., species of bacteria which are obligate jet-fuel feeders; they can't live on anything else. I rather doubt Noah had those on the Ark ...) The only people I've ever heard deny this, despite the overwhelming evidence, are in fact fundamentalists.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
But your only proof here is circular in nature. Whether such a chasm as the ocean exists or not in biology is only considered proven by the variety of species, IF you assume evolution through microevolution gave rise to this diversity. But for evolution to be able to do so you must assume that no chasms exist.
There are no massive shifts from one ogranism from one to the other. Every step in evolution is just that - a step.
When organisms evolved from X into Y, there was a path at least one step behind it and one step in front of it. What seems to confuse people is that "roads" or "lands" get erased when ancestor species die out. In ecolution, there are no stable landmasses. You can't plot a course from LA to NY, becuase they won't exist by the time you get there. Land is always popping up and vanishing. The one rule you can follow is that when new land pops up, it will be very near to old land at_the_time_it_occurs.
That does not mean that looking back, the landmasses will be anything like what they were when your organism X branched.
It's not a proof. Nothing in science is a proof.
OTOH, all the evidence that is needed is in the fossil record - which shows a gradudual change of gobs of species over time. The evidence for the prior landmasses in on exhibit at your local museum. or in your local quarry, if you are so inclined.
That species can adapt and do so on a large scale is not questioned. Rational people can however still find it improbable that the whole of diversity on Earth came about purely through micro evolution and natural selection, or other purely natural processes. There are still alot of BIG hurdles to get over before we can even prove that it's biologically possible for all species to have evoloved from a common ancestor(s). Yes science always has big hurdles to get over, and goes along the theory that best fits the current evidence and is readily testable. However, if people look at the hurdles in front of proving something and consider a different alternative more probable, that does not immediately mean they are fundamentalists. Just because someone has a non-scientific opinion, does not mean they are ignorant, let alone a fundamentalist.
On an unrelated note I'm really getting tired of the 'fundamentalist' title being thrown around here, it's basically name calling and no better than the good old days of calling your neighbor a commie to get your way.
There are no "big hurdles" to be overcome, unless you mean public sentiment. It's a dead issue among scientists (that evoultion has occured - not the specific evolutionary theory which best accounts for the fact of evolution).
Funadamentalist get picked on because to be a fundamentalist means that a person requires perfect evidence for other people's theories and not one scintilla for his own. There is not one drop of evidence that any creator, let alone any god, let alone the God of the Bible actually bothers to exist...
The fossil record is VERY incomplete and is by far the weakest evidence for evolution. The large gaps in it go no where to show that chasms between certain evolutionary paths exist or not. It's in how you interpret the gaps in the record. It is hardly irrational to look at microbiology and the gaps in the fossil record and then think maybe, just maybe those gaps were never filled.
Anyone familiar with this book, and care to comment?
The fossil record is a complete as any resonable person could expect it to be. Fossilization is rare - the vast majority of organisms don't fossilize. You can't get to most fossils. And even if you could, you'd have to divert a huge portion of the world economy to unearth them. And some transitional species may not have been around enough to even leave a fossil. Despite all this, we have fossil evidence for many lines of evolution's history. Trilobites are probably the best documented example...
You can claim that some gaps were never filled, but until you come up with evidence that it was not filled or an alternate theory that is actually *evidenced*, evolution simply has no competition.
Intelligent designers never provide a scintilla of evidence that any creator/guider exists. They just complain that the (literal) mountains of evidence that scientists have unearthed which favors evolution is not enough. They are nothing but a peanut gallery.
In The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins argues persuasively that evolution should be counterintuitive. So it takes "faith" eh? Then why discuss anything? I'm still waiting for answers. I asked the question about the angler fish (ya, that was me -- gotta -1 for that! woohoo!!!). I have honestly been studying, as a novice, both evolution and creationism. I am sick and tired of both sides. You do nothing but bash each other and deride those who don't swear allegiance to your side. I'm an analyst by trade, and a theorist by hobby. I love new theories. When evolutionists, or creationists, spew forth bile instead of answering a question, pure theoretical dialogue becomes impossible. The only real problem I have with evolutionists or creationists (or anyone) is when they claim their theory to be fact. Yes, creationists claim to have facts (evidence ) too. Pretend I'm dumb (not hard), pretend you must talk slowly and deliberately (this'll draw jokes I'm sure), but explain to me how angler fish evolved. This is the one thing creationists discuss that I have yet to hear a good rebuttal from evolutionists on (I don't count the "you can't understand it" explanation above).... Sorry if this is off topic. I guess posts should be directly about the book....
But can we observe speciation or massive shifts from one type of organism to another? No.
Yes. Read this and this.
I have a better idea. Scientists have literally compiled a mountain of evidence that evolution has occured. Why don't one of you creationists come up with one tinsey, tiny little bit of hard evidence showing that ANY god(s) exist... 1. Bile hinders objective thought. 2. This is a parental "because I said so" answer....
Great, I've been modded down. I guess people dont know who John Koza IS...
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Until scientists orbit a Moon sized object around an Earth sized object in the lab, there is no way to prove that Macrogravity is not really caused by the invisible hand of the Lord Jesus Christ!
While one can test microgravity by dropping an apple from a suitably leaning tower, science only draws it's conclusions about macrogravity from observation and forensic evidence, just like Macroevolution. But all good Xians know that this "evidence" the anti-religion scientists put forth is really put there by the dark one to fool us!
We must stop these anti-religious scientists from teaching our children to distrust the invisible hand of Christ and so commit all sorts of immoral acts I can't even begin to type, with their subversive theory of MacroGravity!
Even though the fossil record and DNA analysis provide excellent evidence that the species are related.
There are still alot of BIG hurdles to get over before we can even prove that it's biologically possible for all species to have evoloved from a common ancestor(s).
Well, nothing is ever *proven* in science - just given overwhelming support. And no, there are no big hurdles about it being biologically possible for all species to have evolved from a common ancestor. Again, the fossil record and DNA do a very nice job.
Just because someone has a non-scientific opinion, does not mean they are ignorant, let alone a fundamentalist.
But if they try to claim that their non-scientific opinion is scientific, then they are either ignorant or lying. And as far as fundamentalists go, if you ever would read the usenet newsgroup talk.origins, you would see that those who object to evolution are overwhelmingly people who identify themselves as fundamentalists.
-MDL
Happy meals fund terrorism
But can we observe speciation or massive shifts from one type of organism to another? No. We know how you you could walk from SF to NY, but exactly how does a dinosaur become a bird or a monkey become a man? There are vague and general theories, but the case is far from closed. Evolutionists respond that we shouldn't expect to see this happening because of the vast amounts of time required, when pressed on this issue.
We observe speciation quite regularly, even in mammals (ie, Fenroe Island house rats).
As for monkey to man, well, take a chimpanzee, strip the duplicate of chromosome 2, and change the ~2,000,000 genetic variables that matter (give or take half a million) (only 3-5% of our genes matter).
Obviously, such things are not that simple, at with only ~100 mutations occurring in any given generation, well, that's a lot of time to get things straight, as it were - humans and chimpanzees are about a quarter million generations apart (About 3 billion base pairs, a 1.8% difference between the two, for about 50 million base pairs different (ignoring the duplicated second chromosome in the chimpanzee), they are diverging, ie, split in two, they only need half the generational diference, at 100 mutations a generation, leaves you with a quarter million generations).
I think the problem most antievolutionists have is that they can't wrap their heads around the (admittingly) mind-boggling timescales involved. They certainly are very humbling, to say the least.
I am a science fantasy fan
I would have never believed such woefully ignorant people could assemble a web site. Being a web designer, I take this as a slap in the face and "direct empirical evidence" that I need to lay down some "punctuated equillibrium" on their asses.
But seriously, how scary are these people? Like 666 out of 10! Did you read into that site and see the part about the "Islamic Invasion" of Christianity? Geez, maybe natural selection hasn't taken care of these weak genes yet. My who faith in Science and rational thought has been ripped from cranium.
LOL.
Thanks for the good read!
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
With every new dissertation on evolution, I find it interesting that no researcher seems to address the fundamental, underlying problem which dogs evolution:
Where does new genetic information come from?
Neither McNamara nor Gould even bother to touch on this, even theoretically. Why is it so important? Because they're saying we're getting something from nothing.
A system which isn't directed towards any goal teleologically goes nowhere. And if it is directed, it must have a net positive influx of information. What is that source?
-- BYTEBuG
BLASPHEMER!! ALL know that it is the MIGHTY THUMB OF THOR which keeps us solidly in place upon this earth! His mighty Thumb also keeps the many planets in their correct orbits via gently correction (And/Or smashing them really hard with his mjollinor in the guise of meteor impacts) if you continue to blaspheme against him I warn you! He might remove the protection granted by his thumb and allow you to be fling off into cold and heartless space!
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
There's no way you can call Archaeopteryx weak evidence, what more could you want? If the gaps were never filled, what on earth do you think happened? Why is Archy so obviously reptilian if it's not descended from reptiles?
Cthulhu loves you.
The fossil record and DNA evidence combined show only that animals have similar structures, and the more similar the animal, the more similar the structures(which is kind of by definition). DNA can be considered evidence for common descent, but that does not mean common descent is the only explanation for DNA. The combined evidence of DNA and the fossil record in NO WAY contradict a belief in a world created as Genesis literally describes. I agree alot of people on talk-origins push this as a scientific belief, which it of course is not. That doesn't mean however that the belief is contrary to scientific evidence. It simply isn't the simplest, testable explanation. And for the record, such a belief does not a fundamentalist make.
Evolution is science's biggest failure. Any one who has any basic knowledge of information theory should know this. The anti-theistic physicist Paul Davies admits: 'There is no law of physics able to create information from nothing' http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazine s/docs/v22n2p50.asp#box
Not to mention recent studies of the magnetic field s pointing to a young earth.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-203.htm
You can claim that some gaps were never filled, but until you come up with evidence that it was not filled or an alternate theory that is actually *evidenced*, evolution simply has no competition. :) I'm simply trying to put forward the idea that maybe not everyone who believes in ID is ignorant of evidence or some sort of fundamentalist. There are, like it or not, logical, rational reasons an informed person could reach such a conclusion.
To turn that around, until you come up with evidence that it was filled...
From a scientific stand point though I agree, evolution has no competition. But that does not mean there aren't other interpretations of scientific evidence that simply don't meet the testability, or simplicity criteria which science demands.
Intelligent designers never provide a scintilla of evidence that any creator/guider exists
Actually, all evidence proposed for evolution is in keeping with the theory of intelligent design, the difference is how the evidence is interpreted. There are two ways unscientific can be taken, to be contrary to scientific evidence, or to the scientific process. Although ID is contrary to the process, it is in keeping with the evidence. Any arguments against it generally wind down to arguing philosophy with a bit of probability thrown. Oh yeah, and a lot of personal opinion and experience thrown in to make it a tough issue to debate calmly
No, you will eventually end up somewhere on the east coast of the United States. The channelling and constraints of the road system make it more likely that you will follow certain paths than others (going due east continuously is not an option!) and also make it likely that you will reach the east coast in an urban centre or road junction, rather than a random point.
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
No other source needed.
A system which isn't directed towards any goal teleologically goes nowhere.
This sentence anthropomorphizes a natural process: think about it, what is the "direction" of plate tectonics? The "direction" of planetary orbits?
Likewise, evolution doesn't have a "goal" and it's not "directed", rather life survives by being flexible, and that flexibility takes new forms. Forms that survive well in the new conditions make lots of copies of themselves, while forms that don't change or change in a way that doesn't work so well don't make lots of copies, and disappear.
By the way, Gould most certainly did "touch on this" in fact devoted a good deal of Wonderful Life to describing where new genetic information comes from.
Where does new genetic information come from?
From random mutations.
If you're talking about the classic "evolution violates Newton's third law" argument, the answer is that Newton's third only applies to closed systems (like the universe). The Earth is not a closed system; it happens to be right next to a powerful energy source: our sun. The "something from nothing" is actually "something from solar energy". (And probably geothermal energy.)
A system which isn't directed towards any goal teleologically goes nowhere.
Or everywhere. An expanding system goes in all directions if it's not directed. And evolution isn't directed. However it is constrained by natural selection. Thus harmful mutations are weeded out by the simple fact that those with harmful mutations die (or, more to the point, fail to reproduce).
"think about it"...
Easy enough: start with an ambush predator (on that lies in wait for prey, there are plenty of those), due to a slight mutation one comes along with a lighter or slightly raised patch on it's head, some fish swim in to check it out and are more easily caught, members of the species with the variation tend to catch more, and thus have more offspring. Many of the offspring have the raised patch, some a bit larger some a bit smaller.
The ones with a bit larger catch more and have more offspring, and so on, eventually you have something like an angler fish, no magic hand waving & no faith required, just small changes that confer small advantages that are selected for over millions of years...
Bah, all you're trying to do here is give us anthropologists a bad name!
understand the difference between a closed system and an open system, they have no fear..
More==>
The numerical calculation of entropy changes accompanying physical and chemical changes are very well understood and are the basis of the mathematical determination of free energy, emf characteristics of voltaic cells, equilibrium constants, refrigeration cycles, steam turbine operating parameters, and a host of other parameters. The creationist position would necessarily discard the entire mathematical framework of thermodynamics and would provide no basis for the engineering design of turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc. It would do away with the well-developed mathematical relationships of physical chemistry, including the effect of temperature and pressure on equilibrium constants and phase changes.
So what you are really asking when talking about thermodynamics is where does the energy needed to reverse entropy come from? The aswer is big, hot, and round, and has often been called a god in the past, but unlike the Xian god can be seen quite easily with the human eye.
Meanwhile, the origin of the first cell is interesting (and certainly there are plenty of researchers who aren't afraid of looking into that), but has nothing to do with evolution, since Evolution is the theory of what happened AFTER the first cell formed (which is why Darwin's book is called the Origin of the Species, not the Origin of Life.
Took me about a half hour or longer to write that post that is now 2 points below the default threshold. Was it worth the time to write? People who post links to goatse.cx recieved the same treatment as I just got. Was what I wrote that offensive?
/one person/ who simply disagrees can censor the same work in 1 second. It's not worth the time.
The moderation encourages bad writing by making good writing not worth the effort. Someone can spend an hour writing a post and then
A toxic environment to place things of value.
May I suggest the book "More than a Carpenter" by Josh Mcdowell.
I would also suggest that you take a look into the subject of appologetics. C.S. Lewis is another author you might want to read.
A mutation can produce a change in an organisim. That can be observed. I wonder if there have been any "good" mutations observed (meaning mutations that don't kill an organism). If so I'd love to hear about it? I also wonder if these mutations have been observed to be inherited in the next generation? I've also heard that mutations observed today are caused by the deteroration of genetic information. Anyone care to refute that?
It sure sounds good on paper boys....
My favorite example of a mutation producing new information involves a Japanese bacterium that suffered a frame shift mutation that just happened to allow it to metabolize nylon waste.
Well, not so good if you like to wear nylon, but good for the bugs who can now eat it...
Most interesting assertion, but, adding energy to a system increases its entropy, not its order.
Huh? Is that -2lot? The 2lot that works in an anti-matter universe? Here, in this universe, releasing energy from a system increases entropy & decreases order (a bush burned to ash), while adding energy to a system tends to decrease entropy and increase order (the growing bush before it burned).
Of course if one system releases so much energy that it overwhelms the ability of another system to absorb that energy, both systems can release their energy and decrease their order (the invisible flame thrower with which might Thor ignited the bush), but in both cases the release of energy accompanies the decrease in entropy and order as the systems burn to a lower energy state (ashes to ashes).
But if you are from an anti-matter universe, I can see how this whole debate would be very confusing to you...
By what cause did "natural selection" arise?
Different issue entirely, but I glad you are starting to see that it has nothing to do with 2lot in the normal matter universe, since yes we are getting a "free lunch" from the god formerly known as Ra. Organic molecules tend to organize themselves in the presence of a steady input of energy, so once we have the free lunch courtesy of the Sun, increasing order is entirely expected.
Of course, non of this speculation is a valid criticism of the theory of evolution, since evolution specifically deals with what happens after the first life has formed...
Once you have the first 2 life forms, small differences between the two lead one to do better in a slightly higher place and the other to do better in a slightly lower place, and so natural selection begins.
from Hegel, and unfortunately tainted a rather useful concept in the process.
For Hegel, the dialectic was the observeable process of societal change to a more complex state, which Marx misrepresented as a controllable process with a finite goal: the Worker's Paradise. Of course, if you are trying to get folks to follow you, it's best to promise them a better world will result from drinking your koolaid.
Which maybe is why Marxists don't like Evolution, since like Hegel's dialectic, Evolution is an ongoing process without an ideal ending, rather a road to Paradise.
PS, try reading the Manifesto and then reading Revelations sometime, the two are eerily similar...
Maybe beating the crap out of evolutionists would show them the error of their ways.
Well, it seems few (non-marxist) evolutionary biologists consider Gould's writing on alternatives in evolution to be interesting. And neither are the psychological researchers impressed by his work in that area; in fact, the criticism from them seem similar. (Somewhere between dishonest and Gould being the Newton of straw man attacks.)
The majority of the world's evol biologists and intelligence researchers might be idiots (or in a conspiracy), of course...
Or Gould might have been an idealist with a finished answer about some things, looking to get them confirmed. The only thing we know about the world is that we don't know what we will find -- and as a corollary, it won't be what we expected or wanted. There are so many more ways to be wrong than to be right, so if you have the answer ready before looking, you are certain to be wrong.
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
What does my inability to explain everything have to with anything?
Nope...but everyone knows who your mom is.
Pretty much everyone is familiar with how far her legs stretch back behind her head, too.
Did she ever figure out which of her 45 drag-queen lovers actually fathered you?
You moron.
The fossil record also shows that at a given time; a certain type of animal existed; and at a later point in time, a similar but different type of animal existed. As an example, look at the evolution of the horse. . As far as DNA goes, one could argue that two animals that have similar physical characteristics should have similar DNA without having common descent. But their having similar "JUNK" DNA makes it near impossible to refute common descent.
The combined evidence of DNA and the fossil record in NO WAY contradict a belief in a world created as Genesis literally describes.
Well, if you take Genesis literally, not only does it contradict biological evolution, but astronomy, geology, physics, and even itself.
I agree alot of people on talk-origins push this as a scientific belief, which it of course is not. That doesn't mean however that the belief is contrary to scientific evidence.
If you take the bible literally, it contradicts scientific evidence in many disiplines. But there are many mainstream Christian denominations that have no problem with evolution and the theory of evolution.
Happy meals fund terrorism
The fossil record also shows that at a given time; a certain type of animal existed; and at a later point in time, a similar but different type of animal existed. As an example, look at the evolution of the horse. [talkorigins.org].
Which does not contradict a world where a set of animals was intially created by God, and then evolved over time from that starting point. The difference is only in seeing it as common descent or as descent from a number of common ancestors.
As far as DNA goes, one could argue that two animals that have similar physical characteristics should have similar DNA without having common descent. But their having similar "JUNK" DNA makes it near impossible to refute common descent.
Two ways to go here, first and most important our understanding of DNA is still in it's early stages and it's probably a little premature to declare what parts of "DNA" are insignificant and which simply haven't had their purpose found yet. Secondly, if an intial set of creatures where created and then evolved to create a much larger diversity, insignificant parts of their DNA would remain similar. But again, untill we understand what is significant and what isn't in DNA alot better, it's far too premature to say what needs to be there and what doesn't.
Well, if you take Genesis literally, not only does it contradict biological evolution, but astronomy, geology, physics, and even itself.
If you take the bible literally, it contradicts scientific evidence in many disiplines
Then show me a single example which works when Genesis is assumed true. All the "contradictions" I've seen people claim fall apart unless you already assume Genesis is false. Or in other words, the contradictions are easily explained if Genesis is both interpreted literally AND taken as truth.
than the one used by physicists:
Negative, moving atomic particles around is not equivalent to making an atom no more than cooking an omelet makes you a chicken.
Atoms are of course made of sub-atomic particles, and are formed by "moving" sub-atomic particles, so this makes no sense. If you move a proton and an electron together, you have made a hydrogen atom. If you add a neutron, you have made a helium atom, refresh your knoledge of atomic theory, please.
You also seem to be building a false dichotomy between theory and fact: fact is, scientific theories describe facts (generally called observations). We see the fact that things fall when you drop them, and derive from that the theory of gravity. We see the fact that species exist and change over time and develop from that the theory of evolution.
Meanwhile predictions are made based on a theory to see if theories do in fact describe facts, if predictive experiments haven't been done, the theory is called a hypothesis.
But you seem to be using the term 'theory' in the way scientists use 'hypothesis', which makes your arguments regarding science rather illogical. We both have to agree something is a hammer before we can discuss hammers, so long as you keep insisting a hammer is a chicken, the process will lead to neither a well driven nail nor to a tasty omelette.
Unfortunatly I think you're sadly mistaken. If you ever take the time to study the christian faith you will find that it is infact very logical. Your assumption that there is no evidence for the faith is rather neive. I have no problem with your denial of God, but to say there is more proof for evolution than God is simply not true. May I suggest the book "More Than a Carpenter" By: Josh McDowell. It's a very logical book.
The vast majority of mutations do not kill an organism, or stop it from reproducing (which is more important in evolutionary terms.) The susceptibility of different genes to mutation is quite variable, and those genes which are 'core' to the viability of an organism (say, genes coding for DNA transcription itself) have developed to be very well protected against change.
A more restrictive definition of "good mutation" might be one which gives the organism and its own offspring a competitive boost. Unfortunately this depends on the very specific selective pressures the organism finds itself under at its own time and place in the ecosystem as a whole. Observation in the lab would be a very artificial ecosystem indeed, and in the field it would be very difficult to observe measurable effects.
Mutation is certainly the result of replication failing to produce an absolutely faithful copy of the original DNA strands, however whether you call that deterioration or not is rather subjective! A certain rate of "transcription errors" is built in (by natural selection) because it allows for the generation of genetic diversity that natural selection can work with.
This is my World Wide Web of Whatever
Of course, if god created a certain group of animals, and then let them evolve, then when? We know that life existed hundreds of millions of years ago, and the fossil record shows the gradual evolution of creatures from 600 million years ago (or more) to now.
Then show me a single example which works when Genesis is assumed true. All the "contradictions" I've seen people claim fall apart unless you already assume Genesis is false. Or in other words, the contradictions are easily explained if Genesis is both interpreted literally AND taken as truth.
Heck, Genesis can't even decide which order things were created between Genesis 1 and 2.
Genesis 1:
* Day 3: Plants
* Day 5: Sea animals and flying animals
* Day 6: Land animals, then humanity (both sexes)
Genesis 2:
* The first man (Adam)
* Plants
* Animals (both land and air)
* The first woman (Eve)
Now, the above is trivial compared with taking Genesis as true. The best example is Noah's flood. While there may have been a localized flood, a literal reading of Genesis requires that it was a worldwide flood. Two hundred years ago, a number of Christian geologists wanted to prove to the rest of the world that the flood in the bible did happen (i.e. initial assumption that Genesis was true); they found overwhelming evidence that a worldwide flood never happened.
I'll have to admit that the worldwide flood is a curious story - while the story is told of god saving Noah, his family, and a group of animals as a positive story, it really is a story of mass premeditated genocide on a global scale.
-MDL
Happy meals fund terrorism
"Gouldists" stop discussing when you ask why the who's-who in evolutionary biology considers Gould's public writing to "quite conspicuously misrepresent the views of [biology's] leading spokesmen", as Ernst Mayr put it.
It irritates me that I spent time building an opinion on this subject a few years ago; "Gouldism" seems to be just YACC (Here: Yet Another Crackpot Cult).
At least this inspired me to a signature.
(I clicked "Submit" instead of "Preview" in the previous message. Sorry if it was hard to read.)
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )