The challenge, for all and sundry but especially for “Darwin doubters”, should you wish to take it, is to submit a one-paragraph summary of the theory of evolution. The idea is to see if you understand it well enough to fairly summarize the theory so that you pass as a proponent of evolution. We also need some examples from proponents to test the null hypothesis!
To ensure anonymity, please submit your paragraph by private message to me or another admin and we will add it in edit. (Or email it to me at alanfox@free.fr if you prefer.)
Speculation and divination are enouraged in the comments!
ETA some degarbling!
First contribution:
The Theory of Evolution (hereafter referred to as just evolution is generally credited to Charles Darwin. In his book, Origin of the Species, he described his observations regarding finches in the Galapagos Islands. He noticed that living organisms, when they reproduce, are reproduced with slight modifications. In essence that organisms descend with modification. The first crucial part of evolution is this basic idea. What we now refer to as descent with modification. Gradually, over much time, continual modifications are made to generations of descendants, and after much time, the descendants may be quite different in function and appearance than their ancestors. The first part of this theory was established prior to our current knowledge of DNA and genetics. After the discovery of DNA, and as we learned about how genes are copied, evolution was confirmed because we learned in fact that genetic s are not copied perfectly. Instead there are slight changes, we call random mutations. We now know that Charles Darwin’s ideas about descent with modification were correct and more precisely we know that those modifications happen through random mutation. The second crucial part of evolution is the idea of natural selection. When random mutations happen, they are mostly nonsignificant and have no bearing on an organisms ability to survive in their environmental niche. However, sometimes the random mutations are negative and those specimens die out quickly and don’t reproduce. For instance, albino rabbits are more easily seen and captured by the foxes than are rabbits that are brown. In other cases though, the random mutations result in positive changes to an organism in their given environmental context. These mutations allow the organisms to be more fit for their context and thus they are more successful at reproducing. Gradually over time, natural selection weeds out the less adapted versions in favor of the newer adaptations. An example of this can be seen in the black and white moth scenario in the UK. Together, Random mutation and natural selection along with ‘deep time’ make up the heart of the modern synthesis of evolution. The theory continues to readjust slightly over time with additional research. For example, recently, a minority of scientists (Kimura, et al) have emphasized simple descent with modification as the primary driver of evolution, though not totally discounting natural selection. In essence a neutral drift of the species mostly. There are other slight variations with the models, for instance Stephen J Gould famously proposed a punctuated equilibrium model as an alternative to the ‘gradualist’ model. In neither of the mentioned cases though was evolution rejected. Instead, proposed variations to the theory were given. There are generally some very convincing evidences for evolution. The fossil record and its various layers support the theory of evolution. The age of the universe supports evolution. Vestigial features such as the hair of the human arm standing on end when we are scared or cold provide compelling examples. Junk DNA provides powerful evidence of evolution. And the close relationship, DNA wise of chimps and humans provide strong evidence for evolution. The origin of life, abiogenesis, is generally considered outside the conversation of evolution and not strictly speaking part of evolutionary theory. Evolution gives a clear model for explaining the diversity and similarity of living things across the earth. Contrary to some opinions evolution doesn’t necessarily make any statement about theism or atheism.
Second contribution:
The theory of evolution is that biological organisms develop from one physical state to a different physical state by incremental steps through selection of successfully reproducing members of a population. Those successfully reproducing being due to mutations affecting members of a population and those members gaining a advantage in a environment of the moment. The mutations being the important element for biological change may mean also that selection is not needed in a population and so new populations may simply occur upon mutations alone. The evidence for the theory is from a system of close attributes in organisms demonstrated by a tree formation. These attributes are used to show a spectrum of biological relationship and so common descent to be demonstrated. Genetics and the fossil record are also essential evidences and based on attributes showing a spectrum of divergence. Other evidences based on comparison of attributes also are included. Starting from a hypothesis the accumulation of evidence and general explanatory weight has turned the hypothesis into a theory in biology. Within the evolutionary biology community there are important or notable differences in ideas on aspects of evolution however the core concept is a foundation.
Third submission:
Whether it is a court case or science, the capabilities and limits of causes of specific effects are crucial to deciding whether or not there is good reason to doubt the alleged cause or causes. Evolutionary theory lives or dies on the evidence of the specific effects caused by its capabilities and limits, as should any other claimed cause of life and its diversity. In simple form, evolution is caused by reproduction, which passes inherited information from parent to child, or from single cell to daughter cells, with considerable fidelity, but also with changes in that information called mutations. Detrimental mutations tend to be weeded out by natural selection, while natural selection tends to retain beneficial mutations, and over many generations intersecting and additive beneficial mutations may lead to new features, such as flight. Much more happens in evolution, like neutral or near-neutral mutations, bottlenecks, and genetic isolation (or not), but natural selection tending to eliminate what does not lead to reproductive success and favoring what facilitates reproductive success is usually thought to be the most important process. With these evolutionary processes in place there is considerable scope for impressive change over long periods of time, but there are also important limitations to it that mark evolved life with the evidence for evolution. Notably, while there is some genetic flow between reproductively separated lineages, especially in prokaryotes, polygenic traits are quite unlikely to be transferred to, for instance, vertebrates. Vertical transmission of DNA information predominates in most eukaryotes, and is quite evident in prokaryotes as well. The relative lack of portability of information across separate lineages shows up in the vertically derivative genomes of vertebrates in general, which is seen as nested hierarchies in taxonomy. The limitations of evolutionary processes apparently produce the patterns of life. An interesting example is to be found in the three types of flying vertebrates, bats, pterosaurs, and birds, which all share obvious yet fairly distant homologies, but whose flight adaptations are entirely uninformed by each other at all, apparently due to the fact that all three groups had diverged before each group evolved flight. The same evolutionary limits mean that birds do not have the fine auditory bones that evolved in mammals, while mammals do not have the improvements in eyesight that evolved in birds, such as the pecten (nor do mammals have the more efficient lungs of birds). Vestigial organs are a peculiar case of information retained that is no longer useful for a specific purpose (but may have other current uses), such as the tiny bones of the human coccyx that apparently evolved from tail vertebrae. The general trend of the fossil record is also what would be predicted by evolutionary theory, with amphibians needing dampness evolving first from fishes, then reptiles evolving for drier climates, while mammals and dinosaurs (including birds) evolved insulation for colder areas (among many other changes). “Transitional” forms like Archaeopteryx reveal the incomplete and inefficient adaptations expected from evolutionary processes that are mostly incapable of all but incremental change. The specific patterns and evolutionary developments visible in present life and in the fossil record point with consilience to a specific set of processes that we see happening today, the evolutionary processes of inheriting DNA information with some variations in that DNA, along with natural selection tending to retain reproductively helpful changes, while tending to eliminate reproductively harmful changes.
Fourth submission
The theory of evolution holds that there has been, and continues to be, change in form via change in the genetic makeup of organisms during the succession of a lineage – summarised as ‘descent with modification’. The primary source of these modifications is provided by mutation, arising from copy and repair errors and DNA damage, but also with significant contributions from recombination, gene transfer and transposition. Many changes are lost, but some become fixed, an inevitable consequence of the blind resampling process that is involved in a succession of generations in populations of finite size. Where a change is neutral, it may become fixed in a population through genetic drift alone. Where non-neutral, both drift and selection are involved. The change affects its own survival in the population, by influencing the rate at which it is passed on to descendants, when compared to the neutral expectation. Detrimental changes are more likely to be lost, and this will occur more rapidly on the average than neutral ones. Conversely, beneficial changes are more likely to become fixed, and again this is likely to happen more rapidly than the neutral case. These latter processes constitute the modern version of Darwin’s principle of Natural Selection, which lacked a sound genetic basis when first proposed, but nonetheless articulated the basic requirements of variation and excess of production over carrying capacity.
Within sexual populations, interbreeding tends to maintain an entire population in step, but where gene flow between such populations is reduced or eliminated, divergence is inevitable, leading to the phenomenon, at a moment in time, of multiple fixed and distinct types derived from the original single population. With increasing time, ongoing divergence leads to broader and broader taxonomic classifications with greater and greater difference between them, but all tracing back to simple population-level splits at varying depths in the time series.
I’ll guess the third contribution is by a proponent of evolutionary theory. I thought the first sentence was a giveaway: it seemed to be jabbing at ID backers for not having an evidence-based theory.
Gregory,
Yeah, that’s what usually happens when someone makes a claim and can’t be bothered to back it up … There are sooo many evolutionary theories. Just ask phoodoo. Loads. The Altenberg 16. The Reichenbach 12. The Rickenbacker ’69. James Shapiro. Lamarck. Sheldrake. Scads. It’s so thoroughly bewildering.
Agreed
And all that about “the limitations of evolutionary processes” in the sense that the theory places restrictions on what should be observed to support it, is exactly right, in contrast to the IDC narrative that insists that evolution has damning limitations that make it impossible to produce the observed diversity. Also seems to be a jab at ID for it’s lack of explanatory power
For the second contribution, my money is on IDist
This looks to me like a confused description of speciation by means of drift alone. The use of “new populations” here seems plain wrong
A problem with the way this test is being conducted is that we may have read many posts by these very contributors before, so we may recognize the writing styles. I actually have some thoughts about particular individuals who might have written the second contribution. That doesn’t happen in well-designed Turing Tests.
Anyhow, that’s a problem with this methodology, I think. (Admittedly, though, I’m confused as to the point of this exercise, generally, SWTHDIK?)
Alan’s already decided that here at TSZ it is improper to say that “there is no theory of evolution.”
Alternative to what?
Mung,
Don’t conflate the theory of evolution with the fairy tale of evolution because the latter has no detractors and is rumored to be gaining steam.
Larry Moran would not be allowed to publish that OP here at “The Skeptical Zone.” Here it “The Skeptical Zone” the powers above have decided that there is only ONE “theory of evolution” and it is “THE theory of evolution” and any OP arguing the contrary is not allowed to be published. (We’re not censoring, mind you, because you can always say what you like in Noyau.)
Now, having said that, here’s what Larry actually wrote:
What he did not say is “that all collectively belong under the umbrella of The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.”
😀
Don’t conflate actual evolutionary theory with the cartoon version ID-Creationists love to cling to.
Almost correct. Why not just admit there are many theories and which theory applies depends upon the specific circumstances.
Don’t tempt them to be rational or “reason together” – it might eventually just work ; )
Perhaps they are more confidant that they have no reason to “think it possible they may be mistaken” given THE theory of evolution.
Mung,
Not so much improper as ridiculous, given that there clearly is a theory of evolution. It mystifies me as to why people are pushing this one so hard. Given that there is so much positive evidence for ID and stuff, I’d think they would concentrate on that.
Alan Fox,
It can’t be much else. It causes change in population genetic composition and descent with modification.
Mung,
You could say something as essentially content-tree as that, or you could give people an actual argument that might dent that confidence. Without some meat, it’s hard to do anything but guess as to what the Chorus means by this constant refrain. I have reasons for thinking there is but one general theory of evolution, which I am happy to articulate. If one thinks of drift and selection as different theories of evolution, for example, I would have to say that I consider that incorrect. But it is really hard to tell, beyond the repetitious utterance and the snark about what TSZ does and doesn’t find acceptable.
A theory vs. THE theory. Hmm … is this supposed to be tricky?
Congratulations! Well, that gets us from zero to one. Now we know there is one because Allan says so. It turns out, however, that I was already agreeing with one. Just one? That’s the real question. Do you care to add +1 to that so we have 2? Are there 2 theories of evolution? Or more? Or are you saying you also think there is just One True Theory of eVolution, Allan? Why not just say it if that’s your view.
(I’m a multiple evolutionary theories and/or multiple theories of evolution guy, in case it wasn’t clear yet.)
Ladies and Gentlemen, it is funny to have to ask biologists about the difference between indefinite and definite articles. Communication often isn’t their strong suit. ; )
I just love this attack:
There is no theory of evolution, and it is false anyhow.
I guess that’s what the (once proud!) ID movement has now been reduced to at this point. “See, theorist A doesn’t agree with theorist B about lemma 1497(i)! Toldya there was no theory! Plus, it’s not just that one of them is wrong: they both are!! See: it’s false too!”
Great stuff; it’s a scientific revolution in the making. Kuhn would be proud.
The OP was not intended to be a scientific enquiry and it was really only in response to Barry Arrington’s disingenuous challenge to ID critics to produce a summary of ID “theory”. I accept the criticism that people may be recognisable from their writing styles. But that can be part of the challenge. Name the contributor! I admit to being a little disappointed in only getting a few contributions as there’s not much to be concluded from a small sample.
I actually think attempting to paraphrase the views of someone you are trying to understand is a useful strategy in creating an opportunity for clarification.
First tell dazz and me whether our judgments were correct.
Don’t get me wrong. I have no objection to The Neutral Theory as proposed by Kimura and others or the idea of a molecular clock, in regard to non-coding DNA. What I have, so far, difficulty in seeing is how molecular drift contributes positively to shifts in allele frequency that leads to adaptation. I follow the reasoning that molecular drift will reduce the number of alleles at a particular locus but this is a random process.
I fully intend to. I was just waiting to see if anyone else would chip in with a submission or an analysis.
Final call for submissions, Folks!
1) is definitely IDist. One would not normally stick ‘random’ in front of every reference to mutation.
Alan Fox,
Being a random process isn’t at odds with being an evolutionary one, though.
Gregory,
Well, there has been a regular drumbeat hereabouts that there is NO ToE. Not that there is no single one, but that there is none at all. That is clearly a stupid position, but it does not stop people claiming it – as if the thing they spend their waking hours attacking does not exist.
It needed me to say it?
The generally-accepted theory of [biological] evolution, as I understand it, is just one thing. It’s not Lamarck’s, and it’s not Sheldrake’s, or the pizza delivery boy’s, and it’s not really Darwin’s either. It has numerous components – eg selection, drift, recombination, transposition – and a pedant might argue that these are all theories of evolution, in the sense that they are all subunits of the broader ToE. If it pleases the pedant to think that way, I am happy to let the pedant have it. It is such a blinding, devastating victory for the pedant that I do not know where to put myself.
Yes, you all are on the theist side of the fence, but not one of you has put any meat in that sandwich and done anything more than declare the existence of this legion.
Perhaps, if people mean ‘there is not just one theory’, they might express it better than ‘there is no theory’. Just a thought from a poor communicator.
Yes, that’s a stupid position. Forgive me if I appeal to people more intelligent than that. This isn’t a YEC site, thank God.
You keep using that definite article. It is a mistake Allan. You & the Fox are simply bluffing. You can’t produce what you claim exists. And many greater minds than either of you acknowledge multiple THEORIES with the same name: ‘evolution’. Tough shit for you guys or keep telling people they, not you, must be wrong, for some absurd ‘skeptical’ reason?
Is it really ignorance or rather intentional unwillingness to look? There are 234,000 hits for “evolutionary theories” and for “theories of evolution” 387,000 hits just on one Internet Search Engine. Go fishing or quit the whining!
Bwahahahaha. That does it then.
Not really. There was an Op that never saw the light of day because some moderator decided to take a stance that there is only ONE TRUE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ABOVE ALL OTHERS (hail Darwin), and anyone claiming otherwise wasn’t worth listening to.
Gregory,
Are you suggesting that there are 234,000 different evolutionary theories? No, of course not. So I am underwhelmed. I get over 31 million hits on the word ‘goldfish’.
Perhaps one of you could actually state 2 or 3 theories which you regard as different theories of evolution that are not simply punts by this or that individual but have a significant level of acceptance today. Everyone is belligerently certain there are many, but so far silence on what even 1 of those many might be. I await someone saying something more than ‘there are many theories of evolution’. That sentence could profitably be completed by a phrase beginning ‘such as …’. I have yet to see that, from anyone. “Do your own research” is no help. I have, and am only aware of 1 ToE, albeit with several facets.
Mung,
Yes, really. Those are the words that have been used by more than one poster.
And yet the modern theory of evolution is not actually Darwin’s at all. Your revisionism of the circumstances is also inaccurate.
Joe’s OP can be read at Intelligent Reasoning. I have seen it before. Pasting (not mere posting) it here would be, IMO, spam, though I can’t say I’m unduly bothered either way. Joe’s entire output is spam, consisting of about 10 stock phrases.
If the question of how many theories of evolution there are exercises you, there is nothing to stop you generating an OP for full discussion.
If you think that people here don’t want to brook any dissent, you’d wonder why they’d administer a site that allows ID and YEC views to be freely expressed. But the whiff of censorship, and it’s shouted from the rooftops, with the fullest-throated complaint coming, ironically, from Barry’s cohorts. Which is also, curiously, allowed to stand.
“so far silence on what even 1 of those many might be.”
Hmm, that’s curious. Isn’t that what the thread is about ‘even 1 of those’, except without the ‘of those’? Do you not seem to see that in showing you can’t count – JUST ONE TRUE THEORY, NO MORE, NO LESS – you’re actually exposing the vacuity of your position? It is happening right here in this thread; the admission of dogmatic evolutionistic Woo.
No, of course not. And yet the facts of the matter remain that among 234,000 there are plenty of evolutionary theories to acquaint yourselves with rather than DEMANDING someone do the work for you to hunt for the elephant standing on you doorstep. Stop being lazy! Show us you can do a few minutes of searching and see if anyone doesn’t think like you about this.
Even without belligerence, did you ever think that ‘everyone’ in this case might be right with good reasons? Well, then be specific about what THEY say (not what you necessarily believe) about those ‘many’. It wouldn’t surprise me if you don’t even know their (our) reasons. If you’ve already ‘done the research’ it should be simple. But it appears there is an ideological fetish in Allan Miller to try to Monumentalise Evolution into OTTeVo that denies a reasonable answer.The brandest newest evolving theory of naturally evolving?
This is becoming boring quickly. Anyone who is stuck on OTTeVo is retro funny. No time for such posturing. Let’s laugh politely WITH them as we easily acknowledge multiple theories (& just 3 responses to Alan – let’s see his ‘tricksy’ unveiling of the sources). HaHa!
Gregory,
Do you regard disputes about particular details as denoting separate theories? If two biologists disagree about the proper weight of drift in speciation, for example, would you regard these biologists as having two different theories of evolution? If you do, then I readily agree there are multiple theories of everything in science — and I can’t think of ANY “single theory” about anything at all, since there are always disagreements at the edge of new research.
However, I note that theoretical disputes in science lead to specific tests to resolve them, and therefore science is always honing in on better understandings, one dispute at a time. As opposed to religious disputes, where reality cannot be the decider, so there can’t be any tests, and the result is schism into thousands of sects rather than any trend toward agreement.
By its nature, evolution works the way it works, whether or not that way is ever fully understood.
I’ve just received another submission which I’ve added to the OP in edit. Come on folks! See if you can guess which are from critics and which from proponents of evolutionary theory.
“Bwahahahaha. That does it then.”
Yeah, this gregory fellow is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
It’s becoming boring because you keep insisting there are multiple theories of evolution without ever detailing two that are both generally accepted and contradictory to each other.
#4 seems like a nice statement–at least to this layman. I don’t know who made it? Wikipedia?
Do people not understand the meaning of the word paragraph?
Oh look. Patrick’s moving the goalposts again.
Now for there to be two theories attempting to explain the same phenomenon they must both be generally accepted and also be mutually contradictory, else they are the same theory. What utter nonsense.
Someone needs to turn in their “Skeptic” badge.
Don’t call it “The Theory of Evolution”
It’s absurd to try to convince people of what is blatantly obvious..
Haha. Was that one of the criteria?
Gregory,
So, you think I don’t have good reasons for my position? But yes, yet another screed goes by without a hint of what this multiplicity of (biological) theories of evolution could be. It took longer to write your posts than tell me. This dodging by theists is like performance art in itself. “There are many theories of evolution. You must simply accept this, or do the work that shows I’m right”.
I don’t doubt that many people have their own private ideas, which one could certainly argue constitute theories of evolution. But those aren’t the theories people appear to be trying to make mileage out of. They are trying to portray the field as confused. “So many to choose from – what’s a poor boy to do?”. Well, what I don’t see – and I have spent some considerable time in biological waters – is anything but one general, admittedly multi-faceted theory relating to biological change. I don’t know what else one would confuse for this body of theory. ID? Sheldrake?
ok then.
Don’t call it “The Theory of Evolution”
Mung,
Ah, Larry Moran, who you agree with on every issue? Sticking Moran on your hand as a glove puppet is the closest anyone has come to articulating actual arguments relating to this, and it is as I suspected long ago.- people think that selection and drift must be two different things, and therefore there are multiple theories of evolution. Well, blow me down.
I’ve already said that if people want to take the position that (say) selection and drift are different theories of evolution (me, I think they mean theories within it), they can have it. I’ll push back the furniture so you can do your victory dance shall I?
But the funny thing here is, he’s arguing because he doesn’t want people thinking evolution is only one thing. Which of course it isn’t. It isn’t just mutation, and it isn’t just selection … whoever is seriously being taken to be saying it is? One can agree that there are components to any theory.
But critics are now taking that and banging the drum for all they are worth. as if it means something vital that it isn’t just one thing. For the life of me I can’t see why. Their concern is hardly likely to be pedagological. I know phoodoo was getting lathered up about it the other day, but, well, that’s phoodoo.
OK, let’s call it evolutionary theory then.
(seconds later)
Mung, Cole, phoodoo: “What evolutionary theory? there’s no evolutionary theory! how many evolutionary theories are there? LOLROTFLMFAOLOLOLOLOLOL”
That’s what Moran himself says to call it, right?
I have an idea though. Let’s just use the stuff from his piece that we agree with!
walto,
Moran cites Futuyma, but Futuyma actually uses the term ‘the modern theory of evolution’ in the very book Moran cites as supporting his case for the definite-article-free appelation …
I was being facetious 😀
dazz,
I knew that. I was agreeing with you!
I agree with you that the whole issue is stupid. I mean I could see discussing it in some philosophy of science article regarding identity criteria for theories, but who the hell cares, really?
Two theses, one theory, six elaborations, and a partridge in a pear tree.