Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Evolskeptic · 12-22-2002, 07:04 PM

Wow, the evil is absolutely palpable here! Let’s see if a little light can be shed on all this darkness ...

In his 1982 evolutionary classic, Science On Trial, the highly acclaimed evolutionary biologist Dr. Douglas Futuyama lists five examples of natural selection in action, a list which he feels demonstrates the "fact" of evolution:

1. Strains of bacteria not killed off by anti-biotics change and increase the virulent nature of that population.

2. Insects resistant to DDT and other pesticides are observed to quickly dominate the population of succeeding generations.

3. A tiny percentage difference in the size of the breastbone made the difference between life and death for sparrows exposed to a severe storm.

4. A small difference in the size of beak size allowed finches in the Galapagos Islands to survive a severe and persistent drought condition.

5. The difference of one position in the molecule of a protein for human hemoglobin was demonstrated to make the difference between life and death in malaria infested sections of sub-Saharan Africa. (pp. 118-120)

What immediately strikes the skeptical reader of this list is that each example of natural selection cited involved the most unusual and extreme of environmental pressures. Those not equipped to deal with these unusual and extreme pressures were all but wiped out, resulting in a radically different descendent population. Is Futuyma suggesting that this is the main way natural selection works to change the gene pool, life and death situations? It would appear so. Futuyma went on to briefly discuss sexual selection (the deliberate choosing of mating partners with characteristics perceived to be desirable, i.e., longer antlers), but offered no examples of where entire populations were observed to have been radically transformed by the process. This being the case, it would seem that biological innovations need extremely powerful environmental selective pressures in order to become ubiquitous throughout succeeding populations. If not, Futuyma surely would have included a few examples of biological improvements accumulating and transforming entire populations even in the absence of unusual and extreme environmental pressures.

The type of list Futuyma offered to prove the "fact" of evolution is not unusual. It seems every example offered of natural selection at work has always involved an extreme environmental pressure which devastated an entire population. Perhaps the most famous example is the dark-colored pepper moths escaping predators on soot-covered trees in industrial England (although even that evidence for the "fact" of evolution has come under severe fire in recent years).

The most important question arising from these facts is this:

Given what is now known to be a finite amount of time, have there been enough similarly extreme and unusual environmental pressures available to create every new improvement to every new cell and organ of [i]every[i/] species, genus, family, order, class, phylum and kingdom? How does a biological innovation caused by a mutation or a particularly fortuitous genetic recombination become ubiquitous throughout the population of succeeding generations without some unusual and extreme environmental pressure devastating the reproductive competition? The "founder effect" may work once in a great while with very small, isolated populations, but that type of evolution does nothing to eliminatethe parent population that doesn't have the beneficial variation.

For these reasons it would certainly seem that without the reproductive competition being constrained in some highly effective manner (i.e., a devastating plague), no variation, regardless of how advantageous it might be to an organism’s chances of survival, is going to have a major impact on the type of genetic material available in that population’s future gene pool. This may be the most important “fact of evolution,” one which theorists from Darwin to Futuyma have repeatedly ignored or glossed over.

NOTE: As creationists around here appear to be greatly outnumbered, and as I only type some 20-25 wpm, I may not be able to respond to everyone's posts individually, although I will try to reply to as many relevant issues as possible. Please be further advised that I do not respond to posts that A) are essentially flames B) have a disingenuous ring C) cause me to repeat myself unnecessarily or D) in some other way(s) waste my limited time.

pz · 12-22-2002, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evolskeptic:

What immediately strikes the skeptical reader of this list is that each example of natural selection cited involved the most unusual and extreme of environmental pressures.

No. Most of these are suggested to involve rather small pressures over fairly long periods of time, with the exception perhaps of antibiotic resistance. That the incidents that get reported are ones that produced changes that could be measured within the short span of a few years is an artifact -- it's why these particular examples were used.

You might want to read a little more deeply. The mathematics of population genetics are quite straightforward and contradict your claims here: intense pressures are not required to effect change over time.

RufusAtticus · 12-22-2002, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Wow, the evil is absolutely palpable here! Let�s see if a little light can be shed on all this darkness ...

Well Hello to you too. Evolskeptic, feel free to introdcue yourself in our <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43" target="_blank">welcome forum</a>. We have many posters on this board with PhD's in Biology and realted fields and/or have scientific research experience to back up the posts they makes. I'm not sure home much light you can reveal to us, but I'm willing to see.

Quote:

What immediately strikes the skeptical reader of this list is that each example of natural selection cited involved the most unusual and extreme of environmental pressures.

So snowstorms (example 3), drought (4), and malaria (5) are "unusual and extreme" environmental pressures. Right....

Quote:

offered no examples of where entire populations were observed to have been radically transformed by the process. This being the case, it would seem that biological innovations need extremely powerful environmental selective pressures in order to become ubiquitous throughout succeeding populations.

Selection does not require populations to be "radically" altered from generation to generation. The time it takes a selected allele and or trait to sweep the populations is proportional to the strength of its advantage over the already existing alleles. Thus thing that offer tiny selective advantage take much longer than the examples above.

Quote:

If not, Futuyma surely would have included a few examples of biological improvements accumulating and transforming entire populations even in the absence of unusual and extreme environmental pressures.

Naw. People have only been looking at the genetics of populations for around a hundred years. Not enough time has passed to observe the kind of things you're asking for. However, recent work on detecting past selective events in present genetic diversity (or lack there off) is expanding our window of knowledge.

Quote:

Given what is now known to be a finite amount of time, have there been enough similarly extreme and unusual environmental pressures available to create every new improvement to every new cell and organ of every species, genus, family, order, class, phylum and kingdom?

Sure, 3.5 billion years translates into over 30 trillian generations.

Quote:

How does a biological innovation caused by a mutation or a particularly fortuitous genetic recombination become ubiquitous throughout the population of succeeding generations without some unusual and extreme environmental pressure devastating the reproductive competition?

Even neutral traits will become ubiquitous in a population due to random drift in populations. Look up coalescent theory for more information. Slightly advantagous traits are more likely. Whereas, disadvantagous traits are less likely. So there should be no mystery there.

Quote:

The "founder effect" may work once in a great while with very small, isolated populations, but that type of evolution does nothing to eliminatethe parent population that doesn't have the beneficial variation.

Now you're mixing your evolutionary forces. Founder effect is due to Genetic Drift which produces random sampling error. This is the antithesis of what you're asking.

Quote:

This may be the most important �fact of evolution,� one which theorists from Darwin to Futuyma have repeatedly ignored or glossed over.

You want theory? Please see the 50+ year old Constant Viability Selection Model. Tell me where that misses minor selection.

Quote:

Please be further advised that I do not respond to posts that A) are essentially flames B) have a disingenuous ring C) cause me to repeat myself unnecessarily or D) in some other way(s) waste my limited time.

I just hope that you will never use this as an excuse to ignore your critics. If you have any problems with flaming, please PM me or another mod or an admin. If you have a problem with a mod (or really with anything), you can address it publicly in our <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=7" target="_blank">Bugs, Problems, and Complaints</a> forum.

~~RvFvS~~

Gregg · 12-22-2002, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evolskeptic:
The "founder effect" may work once in a great while with very small, isolated populations, but that type of evolution does nothing to eliminatethe parent population that doesn't have the beneficial variation.

Of course it does. Those with the beneficial variation outcompete the parent population for resources. Parent population dies out.

Anyway, the parent population doesn't HAVE to die out. The beneficial variation might arise in an isolated group that is subject to different environmental pressures.

Gregg · 12-22-2002, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evolskeptic:
What immediately strikes the skeptical reader of this list is that each example of natural selection cited involved the most unusual and extreme of environmental pressures.

Huh? What's so unusual or extreme about, say, periods of drought or excessive rainfall or cold or heat, or the introduction of a new species into the environment?

Albion · 12-22-2002, 09:00 PM

Quote:

The type of list Futuyma offered to prove the "fact" of evolution is not unusual. It seems every example offered of natural selection at work has always involved an extreme environmental pressure which devastated an entire population. Perhaps the most famous example is the dark-colored pepper moths escaping predators on soot-covered trees in industrial England (although even that evidence for the "fact" of evolution has come under severe fire in recent years).

Only from creationists. And increased levels of pollution in the air are hardly "extreme environmental pressures."

Evolskeptic · 12-23-2002, 01:43 AM

How utterly demoralizing! I spend two over hours hunting and pecking my replies to you all, only to have all that work disappear when my computer suddenly declares, "Illegal Operation: This program will be shut down."

The galling part is that the Microsoft word document was "auto saved," but when I click on it to try and recover it the Microsoft Backup program pops up with another "X" that states, "The filename is not valid. This filename must have the extension .SET.", whatever that's supposed to mean.

Oh well, I'm going to bed. If anyone has any bright ideas about how I can recover my replies to your posts, please pass them along. If not, I'll get back to you when I get back to you. Later,

-Evolskeptic

Jack the Bodiless · 12-23-2002, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Please be further advised that I do not respond to posts that A) are essentially flames B) have a disingenuous ring C) cause me to repeat myself unnecessarily or D) in some other way(s) waste my limited time.

Then perhaps it wasn't a good idea to begin your first post with:

Quote:

Wow, the evil is absolutely palpable here! Let’s see if a little light can be shed on all this darkness ...

Wow, the stupidity is absolutely palpable here! Let’s see if a little light can be shed on all this ignorance.

Quote:

For these reasons it would certainly seem that without the reproductive competition being constrained in some highly effective manner (i.e., a devastating plague), no variation, regardless of how advantageous it might be to an organism’s chances of survival, is going to have a major impact on the type of genetic material available in that population’s future gene pool. This may be the most important "fact of evolution," one which theorists from Darwin to Futuyma have repeatedly ignored or glossed over.

Not at all. Darwin realized just how much death there was in the world, even under "benign" conditions. Almost every species produces far more offpring than are needed to maintain a stable population. For all creatures which reproduce sexually, all but two of their offspring must die.

tgamble · 12-23-2002, 02:41 AM

people here may want to read some of Evolskeptics posts here.
<a href="http://creationtalk.com/cgi-bin/bb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=DEBATE+-+Creation+Science+vs.+Evolution+Theory&number=2" target="_blank">http://creationtalk.com/</a>

Having had his arguments completely refuted many times and having hurled abuse at anyone who doesn't agree with him,
<a href="http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000060.html" target="_blank">http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000060.html</a>
he's run away and is now posting here.

Be aware that Evolskeptic isn't the kind of person to let facts intefere with his claims. He also feels that arguments from ignorance are valid.
<a href="http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000091.html" target="_blank">http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000091.html</a>

He's also been caught making false claims.
<a href="http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000070.html" target="_blank">http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000070.html</a>

I wouldn't hold much hope that you'll actually educate him in anything. But good luck anyway!

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]

KC · 12-23-2002, 05:03 AM

Quote:

This may be the most important "fact of evolution," one which theorists from Darwin to Futuyma have repeatedly ignored or glossed over.

Why does this remind me of Walter ReMine?

KC

12-22-2002, 07:04 PM	#1
Evolskeptic Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: NYC, USA Posts: 6	Evolution's Best Kept Secret Wow, the evil is absolutely palpable here! Let’s see if a little light can be shed on all this darkness ... In his 1982 evolutionary classic, Science On Trial, the highly acclaimed evolutionary biologist Dr. Douglas Futuyama lists five examples of natural selection in action, a list which he feels demonstrates the "fact" of evolution: 1. Strains of bacteria not killed off by anti-biotics change and increase the virulent nature of that population. 2. Insects resistant to DDT and other pesticides are observed to quickly dominate the population of succeeding generations. 3. A tiny percentage difference in the size of the breastbone made the difference between life and death for sparrows exposed to a severe storm. 4. A small difference in the size of beak size allowed finches in the Galapagos Islands to survive a severe and persistent drought condition. 5. The difference of one position in the molecule of a protein for human hemoglobin was demonstrated to make the difference between life and death in malaria infested sections of sub-Saharan Africa. (pp. 118-120) What immediately strikes the skeptical reader of this list is that each example of natural selection cited involved the most unusual and extreme of environmental pressures. Those not equipped to deal with these unusual and extreme pressures were all but wiped out, resulting in a radically different descendent population. Is Futuyma suggesting that this is the main way natural selection works to change the gene pool, life and death situations? It would appear so. Futuyma went on to briefly discuss sexual selection (the deliberate choosing of mating partners with characteristics perceived to be desirable, i.e., longer antlers), but offered no examples of where entire populations were observed to have been radically transformed by the process. This being the case, it would seem that biological innovations need extremely powerful environmental selective pressures in order to become ubiquitous throughout succeeding populations. If not, Futuyma surely would have included a few examples of biological improvements accumulating and transforming entire populations even in the absence of unusual and extreme environmental pressures. The type of list Futuyma offered to prove the "fact" of evolution is not unusual. It seems every example offered of natural selection at work has always involved an extreme environmental pressure which devastated an entire population. Perhaps the most famous example is the dark-colored pepper moths escaping predators on soot-covered trees in industrial England (although even that evidence for the "fact" of evolution has come under severe fire in recent years). The most important question arising from these facts is this: Given what is now known to be a finite amount of time, have there been enough similarly extreme and unusual environmental pressures available to create every new improvement to every new cell and organ of [i]every[i/] species, genus, family, order, class, phylum and kingdom? How does a biological innovation caused by a mutation or a particularly fortuitous genetic recombination become ubiquitous throughout the population of succeeding generations without some unusual and extreme environmental pressure devastating the reproductive competition? The "founder effect" may work once in a great while with very small, isolated populations, but that type of evolution does nothing to eliminatethe parent population that doesn't have the beneficial variation. For these reasons it would certainly seem that without the reproductive competition being constrained in some highly effective manner (i.e., a devastating plague), no variation, regardless of how advantageous it might be to an organism’s chances of survival, is going to have a major impact on the type of genetic material available in that population’s future gene pool. This may be the most important “fact of evolution,” one which theorists from Darwin to Futuyma have repeatedly ignored or glossed over. NOTE: As creationists around here appear to be greatly outnumbered, and as I only type some 20-25 wpm, I may not be able to respond to everyone's posts individually, although I will try to reply to as many relevant issues as possible. Please be further advised that I do not respond to posts that A) are essentially flames B) have a disingenuous ring C) cause me to repeat myself unnecessarily or D) in some other way(s) waste my limited time.

12-23-2002, 02:41 AM	#9
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	people here may want to read some of Evolskeptics posts here. <a href="http://creationtalk.com/cgi-bin/bb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=DEBATE+-+Creation+Science+vs.+Evolution+Theory&number=2" target="_blank">http://creationtalk.com/</a> Having had his arguments completely refuted many times and having hurled abuse at anyone who doesn't agree with him, <a href="http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000060.html" target="_blank">http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000060.html</a> he's run away and is now posting here. Be aware that Evolskeptic isn't the kind of person to let facts intefere with his claims. He also feels that arguments from ignorance are valid. <a href="http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000091.html" target="_blank">http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000091.html</a> He's also been caught making false claims. <a href="http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000070.html" target="_blank">http://creationtalk.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000070.html</a> I wouldn't hold much hope that you'll actually educate him in anything. But good luck anyway! [ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-23-2002, 01:43 AM	#7
Evolskeptic Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: NYC, USA Posts: 6	How utterly demoralizing! I spend two over hours hunting and pecking my replies to you all, only to have all that work disappear when my computer suddenly declares, "Illegal Operation: This program will be shut down." The galling part is that the Microsoft word document was "auto saved," but when I click on it to try and recover it the Microsoft Backup program pops up with another "X" that states, "The filename is not valid. This filename must have the extension .SET.", whatever that's supposed to mean. Oh well, I'm going to bed. If anyone has any bright ideas about how I can recover my replies to your posts, please pass them along. If not, I'll get back to you when I get back to you. Later, -Evolskeptic

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.