Microevolution

[ChooseAndAct]

I find it strange that members of this forum say that they accept microevolution but deny the existence of macroevolution.

There is one simple fact of life that shows this is impossible. This fact is that it is possible to kill off every member of a species... to make it go extinct. Extinctions occur all the time and have occurred throughout the Earth's history. The estimated rate of extinction for a species in the Earth's history is between one and ten a year due to natural factors and several hundred times higher than that due to human interference. http://www.bagheera.com/inthewild/ext_background.htm

Now those that subscribe only to microevolution will assert that

a dog still remains a dog in the grand scheme of things.

and that there are no new species being formed.

If all the species were created there would be a certain number of total species. We'll call this number X. We can set X to any number we like as we don't know how many species there actually are. All we know about X is that it is a finite number and it can never increase because a dog remains a dog so there can be no new species.

Just for fun let's set X to 1,000,000 (I know that the actual number of species is much higher than this but it doesn't matter what number we use). There are 1,000,000 species and between one and ten are going exitance every year. After the first year there would be between 999,990 and 999,999 species. Even using the most conservative estimate in one million years there would be 0 species alive on Earth. And even if you set X to a much higher number say one billion the number will still have to approach 0 as species go extinct and no new species are formed.

Now matter how high the number is set we should certainly see fewer species now than 100 years ago and fewer still than 1,000,000 years ago. This is simply not the case.

We had better hope that macroevolution exists or Earth is going to be a very lonely place to live indeed.

[otseng]

Welcome to the forum ChooseAndAct.

Though your post is interesting, it is not phrased as a debate topic. Consequently, it is moved to Random Ramblings. There needs to exist at least one question for posters to try to answer. Please refer to Tips on starting a debate topic for more information. Thanks.

[Sleepy]

I find it strange that members of this forum say that they accept microevolution but deny the existence of macroevolution.

....

We had better hope that macroevolution exists or Earth is going to be a very lonely place to live indeed.

Because some require a little more than theoretical models and 'hope' that the model works. Sounds an awful lot like faith in a model to me my friend.

[QED]

Because some require a little more than theoretical models and 'hope' that the model works. Sounds an awful lot like faith in a model to me my friend.

But Sleepy, this is an observation about a model that I presume you have faith in. It seems to raise a valid question about what source is replenishing species as they go extinct. How does your model account for this in a way that is compatible with our observations?

[Sleepy]

this is an observation about a model that I presume you have faith in

This is an observation of my observation about a model which i presume you indeed have faith in. Please lets not make this circular. I am merely pointing out the areas where hope and faith is influencing the scientific conclusions here, something I am regularly accused of anyway so do not feel threatened by. I am well aware of my own assumptions, however so often the contrary is not true (not in your case mostly QED I should qualify but clearly the OP is not sufficiently aware of his in my opinion).

It seems to raise a valid question about what source is replenishing species as they go extinct.

The simplest answer would be science as opposed to methodological naturalism hasn't found out yet since I currently reject the 'evidence' for macroevolution. Just because I don't trust the scientific evidence for evolution does not mean I have another model. I am not in the business of accepting a theory I do not see sufficient evidence for on the basis that there is no alternative. That is hardly good empirical science.

Your next statement asks to what I believe, being that you see I am a Christian the answer is usually assumed.

How does your model account for this in a way that is compatible with our observations?

I am in a position I admit of being a theist and as such the faith question you have raised, could God have...? The answer to this is pretty straightforward. However I accept that this is not a scientific answer and as such has no real meaning in this thread. This is based in my assumptions and not science, something it seems is a theme on this thread.

QED I know you are a fan of models and how they work, I have read many of your posts with much interest and learned from them in many areas. You are very capable in this area but as you are coming to understand I am someone who needs a little more hard evidence. This probably comes from my medical background where as I have come to understand, all the theories in the world cannot replace a good evidence base for my decisions on patients.

Sorry for the short tangent but perhaps QED this will help you understand why I am not so accepting of theoretical models.

[QED]

this is an observation about a model that I presume you have faith in

This is an observation of my observation about a model which i presume you indeed have faith in. Please lets not make this circular.

It is slightly confusing isn't it ...but no, ChooseAndAct was describing what would happen with a model that excludes macroevolution i.e. the one you have faith in. Hence his post is an observation about a model that you have faith in.

Sorry for the short tangent but perhaps QED this will help you understand why I am not so accepting of theoretical models.

I cannot fault you for that. Not one bit. That's why I spend a considerable amount of my time looking for practical examples of the principles of natural selection acting in other areas. As you may be aware I'm particularly interested in evolvable hardware as it provides an unequivocal case for there being a force for "apparent design" residing in abstract logic. Applying the theory to practical, constructive, ends is a major indicator that the theory is sound up to some point. This point, I can see, is easily way beyond that already disputed by anti-evolutionists (for want of a better descriptor) and there is no apparent limit to the complexity of any "design" so generated which leads me to suspect that the complexity of natural "designs" is not the mystery that some feel it to be.

[Sleepy]

ChooseAndAct was describing what would happen with a model that excludes macroevolution i.e. the one you have faith in. Hence his post is an observation about a model that you have faith in.

I disagree on one point, it is a problem for those that reject the evidence for macroevolution but not a problem if you are still waiting for a model to explain it. From my point of view I do not have faith to support macroevolution on the basis of the empirical evidence.

You and the OP have a lot of faith in the model of macroevolution and you may well conceed this therefore requires less empircal evidence to convince you that it explains all lifes origins compared to someone like myself, , and whilst you conclude models around

evolvable hardware as it provides an unequivocal case for there being a force for "apparent design" residing in abstract logic.

I maintain that this is indeed in abstract logic and you do indeed conceed.

I cannot fault you for that.

So in conclusion the original statement of the OP

I find it strange that members of this forum say that they accept microevolution but deny the existence of macroevolution.

You conceed that it is because some find it less convincing not because they disagree that theory works nor that they see it as a problem but because the current empirical evidence is not convincing to them despite the supposed 'hope' that they are supposed to have that it should.

I conceed that my position may change but only on the basis of hard evidence not on the basis of models that work in theory.

[QED]

You conceed that it is because some find it less convincing not because they disagree that theory works nor that they see it as a problem but because the current empirical evidence is not convincing to them despite the supposed 'hope' that they are supposed to have that it should.

I conceed that my position may change but only on the basis of hard evidence not on the basis of models that work in theory.

There's an awful lot of conceding going on here! Hard evidence to me is being able to model something in practice. How could we not be entitled to declare that we have proved there is a force that can create the "appearance of design" when we can be delivered with "apparently designed" artifacts like those coming out of NASAs evolvable systems group? Naturally it requires a full understanding of the processes involved, but that's something I am only too pleased to discuss. Please rest assured that nobody is kidding themselves in this particular field.

As with all other forms of logic the same "abstract logic" that permits this sort of artificial evolution in the workshop is present everywhere in the cosmos and is available to any analogous system. The natural system of molecules and their constituent atoms is a prime candidate for the application of this very same logic and with no practical limits to restrict the complexity of apparently designed hardware products being evolved in workshops right now, no principle limits exist in the same model working in the natural world either. We would only seem to have a good reason to reject this particular model if such limits were to be demonstrated.

[Sleepy]

There's an awful lot of conceding going on here!

Was that a concession?

How could we not be entitled to declare that we have proved there is a force that can create the "appearance of design" when we can be delivered with "apparently designed" artifacts like those coming out of NASAs evolvable systems group? Naturally it requires a full understanding of the processes involved, but that's something I am only too pleased to discuss.

I haven't studied the field in great detail but I am happy to accept how wonderful such systems work in the, workshop, technological and theoretical world. Can I first ask if these systems exhibit progressive developmental change on the 'stasis' followed by 'sudden change' rules which would allow us to apply such systems to what we see in the fossil record?

Examples from 'my' world. Lab testing of drugs and how they work is no substitute for human trials. We have all heard stories of how some of those went.

Whilst I don't doubt that artificial evolution systems create all sorts of wierd and wonderful things thats hardly evidence in the natural world. You may think this is weakness or lack of insight on my part but I count this as a strength, it prevents me from killing people. I know first hand all too well the effects of models and principles which work wonderfully in theory and often in other disciplines but did not work in the natural world (my patients). I practice evidence based medicine for good reason.

Models don't cut it with me my friend. Sorry if this is frustrating to you, you are not going to convince me that because it works on a computer or a workshop it works in all parts of nature without a body of evidence to support it.

You are arguing micro to macroevolution here and are going to have to do better than modeling it to prove it happens, just as ChosenAndAct is going to have to do better than hoping it works to prove it happens.

[QED]

How could we not be entitled to declare that we have proved there is a force that can create the "appearance of design" when we can be delivered with "apparently designed" artifacts like those coming out of NASAs evolvable systems group? Naturally it requires a full understanding of the processes involved, but that's something I am only too pleased to discuss.

I haven't studied the field in great detail but I am happy to accept how wonderful such systems work in the, workshop, technological and theoretical world. Can I first ask if these systems exhibit progressive developmental change on the 'stasis' followed by 'sudden change' rules which would allow us to apply such systems to what we see in the fossil record?

I have every confidence that Punctuated Equilibrium would indeed be seen if the environment or selection criteria was to change following a period of stasis. But the typical evolved product is developed at an irregular pace anyway, subject as it is to the internal states of it's algorithm despite the fact that the environment and selection criteria typically remain static. This is because the method predicts fits and starts of developmental activity anyway -- every so often "breakthroughs" are "discovered" by the algorithm that leads to higher efficiencies in meeting the selection criteria. This might have parallels in the transitions between the earliest periods e.g the Ediacaran to the Cambrian where a gearing-up of evolution is seen via the "sudden" abundance of more readily fossilizable organisms.

Whilst I don't doubt that artificial evolution systems create all sorts of wierd and wonderful things thats hardly evidence in the natural world.

With the greatest of respect your admission is my key concern. You say you have no doubt that there is a force for creation in the logic "captured" by Genetic Programming. Many "creationists" deny that such a force even exists preferring to think that only Man and God have the capability to design and create complex artifacts. At least we have eliminated this possibility! The question then is one of the likelihood of this being the correct model for the natural version of evolution. I think it would be quite remarkable if the observations of nature (e.g. Darwin's own) were to inspire the development of automated design generators over a hundred years later that actually work -- only to find that those initial observations and understandings were in fact erroneous.

You may think this is weakness or lack of insight on my part but I count this as a strength, it prevents me from killing people. I know first hand all too well the effects of models and principles which work wonderfully in theory and often in other disciplines but did not work in the natural world (my patients). I practice evidence based medicine for good reason.

A wise precaution I agree. But I am arguing that we are privy to some very significant evidence in being able to evolve novel (even patentable!) designs using our technology to implement a theoretical methodology draw from our observations of nature.

Models don't cut it with me my friend. Sorry if this is frustrating to you, you are not going to convince me that because it works on a computer or a workshop it works in all parts of nature without a body of evidence to support it.

Is this wholly reasonably I wonder? It works in nature in so much as the principle is universal. We can't escape it by switching from one environment to another. Without any practical limit to the capacity for complexity in any evolved product we have to have a serious reason to reject it over it being merely a matter of taste. Without even delving into the depths of the process isn't it at all compelling that if something is built to a plan and the plan is passed from generation to generation with minor, random, alterations then the product will adapt and explore the terrain of what is possible and practical? I personally can't imagine not being compelled by this simple process.

You are arguing micro to macroevolution here and are going to have to do better than modeling it to prove it happens, just as ChosenAndAct is going to have to do better than hoping it works to prove it happens.

But surely it is happening in the evolution of a spacecraft antenna for example? This goes from scratch to a product that meets it's selection criteria without any evident boundary (or anticipated boundary). There is nothing in principle that suggests such a boundary -- other than stepping over a particular philosophical divide.