There’s no end to the claims made for and about evolution and what evolution can allegedly accomplish without intelligent guidance. It seems as if Evolution ought to be treated as a god and capitalized. What would a true skeptic do without Evolution?
Far less common are actual metrics for testing evolutionary claims. For example, requests for how to write an actual test for claims about “the power of cumulative selection” are met with silence or scorn.
J.B.S Haldane once wrote:
A satisfactory theory of natural selection must be quantitative. In order to establish the view that natural selection is capable of accounting for the known facts of evolution we must show not only that it can cause a species to change, but that it can cause it to change at a rate which will account for present and past transmutations.
Was Haldane wrong? Did he expect too much from the theory?
Chase Nelson has a review essay article on Haldane’s Dilemma up over at Inference: International Review of Science.
What do readers think of his article? Is there a limit on the rate of evolution and why don’t claims for the alleged power of evolution include objective testing metrics such as calculations of cost?
Having made a claim that he can’t back up…
… Mung is now asking us to turn it into a true claim:
Give it up, Mung. You can’t force us to be as irrational as you are.
Is there a limit on the power of Intelligent Design and why don’t claims for the alleged power of Intelligent Design include objective testing metrics such as calculations of cost for a particular design?
Far less common means they exist. Now that you have acknowledged such, do you have some metrics for testing the claims of Intelligent Design where as far as I know no such metrics exist at all, never mind “less common” ones. If not, why are you not complaining about their lack? Evolution only suffers from a relative lack not an absolute one. So why start with evolution?
LOL, the essay in the OP cites Axe’s hysterical claim that new functions are found at a rate of 1 in 10^77 in protein sequence space, and cites Lynch’s “The rate of establishment of complex adaptations” using a common misconception about their work.
Hello Mung,
Yes, there is a limit on the rate of evolution, and yes there have been quantitative tests of (for example) whether observed rates of evolutionary change are sufficient to account for morphological changes in the fossil record. Some of that is actually pretty old stuff, but that kind of research is stil being conducted, for example John Endler’s and David Reznick’s work on adaptive evolution to introduced predators in Trinidad guppies, which showed rapid simultaneous changes in coloration, number of offspring, reproductive timing and body size. The rate of evolution by natural selection was on the order of four to seven orders of magnitude faster than had been inferred from the fossil record. So costs were not prohibitive there. Do you expect things to be different in mammals?
What does it say about religion that you denigrate science by calling it religion?
As Corneel mentions, the long-term rate of evolution as suggested by the fossil record is generally orders of magnitude slower than the short-term within-population changes observed in modern populations. The conclusion would then be that the cost is not a problem.
One could also bring up studies like Nilsson D., Pelger S. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 1994; 256:53-58.
Any comparable studies for ID? I guess they aren’t needed because ID is a magic wand you just have to wave, and it doesn’t need your pathetic level of detail.
Again you are calling it a study. Ha. You have invented a whole new meaning for the word study..
I think the bible is a study of how the universe was formed, using your definition of the word study.
Of course the Bible lacks the footnotes by the Author
Why in the world would you think this is evidence for random mutation and natural selection?
Change happening simultaneously and faster than predicted should be exactly the kind of evidence we would expect to CONTRADICT a theory of random mutations and natural selection.
Its bizarre that evolutionists can take virtually any data and claim that it supports their theory.
Heck, just calling something “adaptive evolution” is contradictory to the supposed theory of evolution. Is this another one of those times where, as Allan says, evolutionists just use teleological language because its convenient, but its not really what they mean?
It seems it would make it much easier if instead of saying what they don’t really mean, they would stick to using words that are what they really mean.
Once we agree to use John Harshmans definition of the word “study”, any academic requirements are completely optional. Dr. Seuss’s One Fish Two Fish would qualify as a rigorous study of animal behavior.
I think you are confused, it is your definition of study that would allow that.
Likewise if the earth heats up faster than predicted is is evidence against global warming.
I had a young relative inform me the other day that global warming is a regional thing only.
You’re half-right: it’s exactly what someone who doesn’t understand evolutionary theory to begin with would expect. It doesn’t contradict the expectations of those who actually do understand what the theory predicts.
Hello phoodoo,
As multiple posters have already pointed out, you seem to misunderstand; the change is not happening faster than predicted, but faster than minimally required to explain long-term rates of evolution in the fossil record.
Adaptive evolution is evolution by natural selection, as opposed to e.g. evolution by genetic drift. I am sorry if this confuses you, but there is nothing I can do to change the terminology. I am pretty sure you can cope, though.
BTW: In the linked essay I saw a familiar name “Joseph Felsenstein”, who has published on this topic. With any luck we’ll get some expert feedback.
Oh is that right. So you mean the theory of evolution has always expected change to happen quickly and with multiple changes occurring simultaneously. That’s interesting. So when you said: “The rate of evolution by natural selection was on the order of four to seven orders of magnitude faster than had been inferred from the fossil record” it was the fossil record which was surprising then.
Haha, I see we have a new comedian joining us.
Tell me something, how do we decide if evolution is happening by natural selection as opposed to genetic drift? Do we have a way to measure that too?
Oh spare me your same, oh that’s a caricature of evolution theory nonsense KN.
The theory predicts fast, the theory predicts slow, the theory predicts if we unwind evolution it would never repeat itself, the theory predicts congruent evolution, the theory predicts fine tuned precise adaptations, the theory predicts haphazard, good enough inelegant solutions, the theory predicts lots of junk DNA, the theory predicts no junk DNA,…
More complete bullshit KN. You should at least try to do better than this. Predicted by whom and when? You can’t call anything a caricature of evolution until you can show exactly what evolution has predicted and what it hasn’t, and you are woefully short on this data professor.
Guys. Just ignore phoodoo please. He’s a massive waste of time… and breathing air
Among other things, it says that religion is tribalism.
It also says that a person whose beliefs are determined by the tribe is hostile to opposing beliefs.
Remember that old saw: “Don’t feed the troll?”
It doesn’t say much about religion IMO, however, it shows how pathetic they are.
One day they will whine about our “scientism” for not allowing spooky, faith-based supernatural explanations that they will never produce.
The next day they’ll claim evolution is faith-based and not science at all, while ID is purely scientific and doesn’t posit any supernatural beings.
As I understand this, the theory places a maximum speed limit considerably exceeding what has actually occurred.
I don’t follow this. If the overwhelming majority of organisms are well suited to their environments, you would expect them to change fairly slowly. Historically (geologically speaking) at almost any given time, this is the case. I would be curious as to whether rates of evolution during periods of radiation following mass extinctions show a faster rate of change in general.
I think that’s a good question, and I hope some biologists here will propose an answer. As a layman, it would seem to require a finely-tuned eye to distinguish between a mildly beneficial mutation and a neutral mutation.
Yes, well I am simply pointing out Corneel’s little card trick here. Is he saying that evolution predicts change to occur very slowly, or quickly, or everything in between? Look close, watch my hand over here..voila..he is saying none of the above! Did you see it, it happened real fast, you might have missed it.
Because that is just it, the theory of evolution is supposedly about evolution happening by random mutations, slowly adding up over time, because each tiny little mutation causes some tiny reproductive advantage, which when added to the next tiny mutation and next tiny advantage, over time causes changes in a population.
But since evolution doesn’t actually make predictions, but instead just takes whatever it sees, and then says, “Well, this doesn’t contradict the theory, this is exactly as we would expect..!” , then of course slow is fine, fast is also fine, change happening one at a time is fine, change happening simultaneously is fine, hey, whatever we find is find, because well, why not? WHATS TO STOP IT!
So when Corneel says
what point is he trying to make? That this is what we would expect? That this is not what we would expect? Both? Neither? He doesn’t care, its all good.
A theory which predicts everything and nothing is hard to prove wrong.
How can meteorology predict sunshine, and cloudiness, and rain, and snow, and sleet???
A theory which predicts everything and nothing is hard to prove wrong, right phoodoo?
Moved a comment to guano
This is not my reading of his comment. I think there actually IS a maximum possible speed of evolution, and I think it can be calculated. Most evolution happens by branching events within a breeding population, whose members must be compatible enough to interbreed for long enough to establish a new species.
I am not qualified to say whether evolutionary theory predicts a rate of change closely tied to rates of environmental change plus rates of drift. But I think any such prediction must necessarily be tied to mechanisms of mutation and environmental change. Given these parameters, I would expect rates of change to vary from as fast as possible to near zero, depending on other factors.
I think this is a good summary. So long as we understand that if an organism is almost perfectly suited to its environment and lifestyle, it’s going to be a very rare mutation that causes some tiny reproductive advantage.
As I understand it, evolutionary theory makes multiple predictions, including a range of possible rates of change. Kind of like saying cars can go slow, they can go fast, and therefore ANY speed is possible. But there is a range of speeds depending on many factors – the surface, the curves, the engine size, the stickiness of the tires, etc. Many speed ranges, but all cars.
But how about a theory which sets a RANGE of rates depending on multiple factors?
As I understand it, the rate of speciation would be affected by two major factors: the underlying rate at which novel mutations arise and the stability or instability of the environment. The former might be affected by both environmental factors and the redundancies of the DNA repair system. If the environment relative to the organism is stable enough that the niche doesn’t change, then there’s no selective pressure. Turtles and frogs have been doing their thing for several million years, with little morphological change.
Ignore this troll folks. He is just a waste of air. Every time he breathes he just wastes air for those who actually need it. Trolling trolls never stop trolling.
Of course. Whatever rates of change we find, that’s the rates it predicts.
That’s even what Darwin said, right. Change happens slow or fast, or slow and fast, sometimes slow, sometimes fast…Whatever. I will let you know the prediction as soon as we find out.
Kantian Naturalist,
Sure. Whatever is required.
As you understand it, the prediction is the outcome.
Kantian Naturalist,
I think you may be confusing speciation with evolutionary change, or perhaps just change due to natural selection. Speciation is the evolution of reproductive isolation between populations. There is no particular reason it should be tied to phenotypic change or even mutation rate. Turtles and frogs may not have much morphological change (though anthropocentric myopia might influence that perception), but they certainly have plenty of speciation.
Now, it’s generally considered that most speciation is allopatric, meaning that populations must generally be geographically isolated from each other for a while before speciation. An unstable environment without geographic isolation is unlikely to result in speciation. A stable environment with geographic isolation is likely, though it helps — faster speciation — if the environments of the two isolated populations differ a bit. I strongly recommend reading the aptly titled Speciation, by Jerry Coyne and H. Allen Orr.
This is like saying there is no “theory of automobile speed” because they travel at a RANGE of speeds, and therefore whatever speed they are going, that’s the speed the theory predicts! So that makes the theory worthless, right? If cars can go at ANY speed, then they can go at EVERY speed, right? So if we observe a car going 40mph, and then going 80 mph, and then parked, our theory that there is a RANGE of possible speeds is baloney, right?
Apparently the notion that all of these speeds are allowable for vehicles confuses you beyond hope.
But evolutionary theory says, the RANGE of speeds can vary from zero to some much faster rate which is STILL glacial in terms of human lifetimes. And this range is indeed orders of magnitude in size.
I was not aware of this. How is it there are so many species of, say, birds, even though their ranges overlap? How common is speciation due to slightly differing diets, or pheromones, or mating rituals, or hunting/hiding habits, etc. My intuition is that such changes should far outnumber speciation due to continental drift or river course changes.
Where can I learn more about this?
Don’t be so hard on yourself phoodoo, you have all the makings of being a Trumpian troll.
Religious belief is evidence of evolution
It doesn’t take continental drift or river course change to produce geographic isolation. And as far as can be told, speciation without geographic isolation is extremely rare, except perhaps in plants, where speciation from allopolyploidy may be as much as 5%.
Like I said: Speciation by Coyne & Orr. Great book, not heavy on the technical jargon.
Yippee, no moderation again!
Oh, no wait, I forgot, we still have Neil’s version of moderation, so obviously the clause on no moderation only applies to materialists.
Oh well, its cool, maybe you can get in line for Dazz’s mom. Neil said he is done.
Apologies phoodoo, I see you believed you were responding in kind.
Flint,
When was this predicted? Did Darwin predict this ? Who predicted it?
What is the speed at which changes occur, at which point it is outside the range of predictions?
I think I have a pretty good clue about this answer. Whatever the speed that things change at, that is what we predict. Orders of magnitude faster than the fossil record? Ok, if that’s what happens, then I guess that’s what we predict…
I guess we’re back to the car analogy again. If it’s going 40mph, is this “the” predicted speed, or simply a speed within the expected range. If it’s going 80mph, does this mean our prediction is wrong, or does it mean any speed prediction is nonsense, or does it mean cars have a range of possible speeds? If the speeds cars travel from stoplight to stoplight in a large city is the “fossil record speed”, and we watch NASCAR racing speeds at the track, does it mean any speed is “predicted”? Or does it mean that whatever speed we observe must be the “predicted” speed, rendering our predictions meaningless?
I suspect there is a maximum speed for evolution, and the rate at which humans are changing habitats exceeds that speed by quite a large amount.
Flint,
I wasn’t asking for an analogy. The claim is this was a prediction. There is no analogy there, it either was or wasn’t predicted. By whom? When?
All these so called evolution predictions seem to come after the facts. We don’t call that a prediction. I bet I can find where some biologists had predicted evolution must occur very slowly, and by one small mutation at a time.
LMFAO
I guess we need to distinguish between HOW evolution occurs (one small mutation at a time), and HOW FAST evolution CAN occur. And as I’ve tried to say a few times, there seems to be a maximum possible speed at which evolution can happen, which is far slower than would be required to track the current rate of habitat alteration.
While I’m certainly not a biologist, I can understand that the rate at which small changes can accumulate (and be selected) can vary based on the probability that any “random” change will be beneficial. I would think that the more poorly an organism is adapted to its environment, the higher the probability that such changes would help.
And this means the prediction is that evolution can occur at any rate up to some maximum, where it tops out. That maximum considerably exceeds what we actually observe when environment is static, but falls considerably short of what would be required if the environment changes too fast.
I don’t think there is much dispute that mass extinctions occurred a dozen times in the past because of environmental changes too rapid to track by cumulative small mutations.
And $80 for the paperback version! Time for a trip to the public library.
Moved a comment to guano
Alan Fox,
Was it this comment you moved Alan:
No, probably not…
Now that is funny.
Reading through the comments I get the distinct impression that no one has actually read the essay or if they did read it that they failed to understand it.
Perhaps Joe will weigh in and explain why cost is a problem and why it is taken seriously.
Did they test their model by measuring cost?
I actually read the whole thing, but regarding the population genetics I’m not qualified to assess it so I will leave that to people who know more. As a window into the history of the subject it is interesting in it’s own right.
There are a couple of questions posed I think are meant to be rhetorical? Yet appear to me strange. He writes
And the goes on to elaborate on it. I take that question to be meant rhetorically, but it seems to me the answer is a trivial yes. That is consistent with what we know. It takes very few changes in key regulatory sequences and master controller genes like the HOX genes to affect large-scale developmental changes.
These so-called “complex adaptive differences” between humans and chimps are mostly about body proportions, density of hair and size of certain brain-areas. Those kinds of changes boil down to keeping certain genetic switches in the “on” state for longer during maturation, so the brain can grow more.
I don’t see the problem.
He asks again later on
Yes. Yes they can, that is entirely consistent with what we know. This is why it doesn’t appear to me the cost-problem, at least with respect to the chimp-human split from our common ancestor, really isn’t any problem at all. Which is why I’m perplexed he even asks that question.
Assuming all his population genetics calculations and his history is all correct, which I have no problem doing, the entire essay seems to collapse on a weakly premised rhetorical question. In fact a non-premised one. He never gives even a hint why it should be a problem that so few mutations in fact account for the adaptive (or otherwise) differences between humans and chimps.
So what is the big deal?
Flint,
I also recommend Trevor Price’s Speciation in Birds.