Random Chance or Natural Selection

[William]

[Quote from another thread]

bluegreenearth: Evolution is not guided by random chance but by natural selection

William: Q:. What is the difference?

I think the key word is "by" which - with the word "Guided" - implies some type of intelligent designer.
However, when I change the sentence with something along the lines of;

"Evolution is not the result of random chance but of natural selection" the implication of a Creator (some type of intelligent designer) is still to be seen in the words "natural selection".

Given [font=Georgia]Natural Selection[/font] is shown through science to be guiding evolution, it would appear that it is a substitute phrase which seeks to move our thinking away from there being a Creator, into that which is The Creation.

It bestows upon Creation the same necessity which theists bestow upon their Creators...the necessity of being able to guide a process intelligently and with purpose. Not just assigning The Creation with being nothing more than a mindless mishmash which accidentally came about purely by "random chance".

[Difflugia]

No. Natural selection isn't a mechanism of Lamarckian evolution.

Are you trying to communicate the idea that mutations do not happen randomly?

No. I'm trying to communicate that natural selection isn't a mechanism of Lamarckian evolution. Nobody, including you, said anything about mutation.

If mutations do not happen randomly the mechanisms would have to be defined as Lamarckian.

Again, no. "Non-Darwinian" doesn't always mean "Lamarckian."

The main idea behind Lamarckian evolution is that physical changes to an organism can be passed on to an offspring. The classic Lamarckian experiment was to surgically remove the tails of lab mice over several generations. The expected outcome was that the offspring would be born with shortened tails. The Lamarckian hypothesis didn't involve selection in the Darwinian sense at all.

If we were to posit Lamarckian evolution mediated by genetic mutations, those mutations would have to not only be non-random, but also be directed by natural forces. That is, some environmental factor would have to cause a mutation as a response to that factor. Colder weather, for example, would have to cause a mutation that resulted in thicker fur.

Instead, we now know that's backwards. The mutations themselves are random. Offspring with a thick fur mutation (to continue our example) are occasionally born whether the climate is cold or hot. If the weather is exceptionally cold, then the offspring that randomly were born with thicker fur, survive at a higher rate than those that weren't. Though the fortunes of each individual offspring involve random events, the differential in the rate of survival for thinner versus thicker fur is non-random. It's kind of like a roulette game in a casino. There's enough random noise in the system that any given spin might result in a win for the player and loss for the house, but the game has a built-in, non-random edge for the house. The house might lose over a short period, but will always win over time.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia]

Again, no. "Non-Darwinian" doesn't always mean "Lamarckian."

One of the main theories of evolutionary change is punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is nothing more than saltational. In biology, saltation is a sudden and large mutational change from one generation to the next, potentially causing single-step speciation. This was historically offered as an alternative to Darwinism. Some forms of mutationism were effectively saltationist, implying large discontinuous jumps. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_(biology))

How can large mutational change happen in a desired or beneficial direction? Has this type of change ever been observed?

Maybe your belief that "non-Darwinian" evolution is not Lamarckian is correct. Your right it would have to be more like straight-up "pantheism". It is the power of the universe that causes the change in the organisms in a punctuated way.

[Difflugia]

One of the main theories of evolutionary change is punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is nothing more than saltational. In biology, saltation is a sudden and large mutational change from one generation to the next, potentially causing single-step speciation. This was historically offered as an alternative to Darwinism. Some forms of mutationism were effectively saltationist, implying large discontinuous jumps. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_(biology))

This is entirely wrong. The observation behind puncutated equilibrium is that in general and from a population standpoint, fossil morphologies will be stable for geologically long periods of time. "Punctuating" those "equilibria" are geologically shorter periods of instability that result in larger morphological changes.

The theory of punctuated equilibrium is that populations will reach a stable equilibrium within the totality of their environment (climate, predators, prey, etc.). When something changes, it can cause instability in the overall system, leading to changes. After a while, another stable equilibrium will be reached, which will last until another perturbation.

None of this affects or says anything about the underlying mechanisms of short term (often called ecological time rather than geological) of evolution. Mutations still happen and natural selection still applies in an exactly Darwinian fashion. Punctuated equilibrium as a theory is the idea that morphologies tend to be conserved over long periods of time with nearly all morphological novelty being selected against as as long as the stable equilibrium holds. The "classic" alternative is the gradual improvement of morphologies through time (i.e. a given organism should be a thousand years "better" than an ancestor from a thousand years ago).

To repeat, punctuated equilibrium says nothing about the kinds of mutations that appear or the mechanisms of their selection. It is instead a theory about what constitutes "fitness" in the evolutionary histories of various lineages.

How can large mutational change happen in a desired or beneficial direction?

If "large" means "grossly improbable," then it can't. Or, more accurately, it's possible, but grossly improbable. In any case, punctuated equilibrium doesn't require single, improbable events.

Has this type of change ever been observed?

No. That does depend on your definition of "large," though.

Maybe your belief that "non-Darwinian" evolution is not Lamarckian is correct.

It's a "belief" in the sense that I'm pretty sure that I've got the definitions right. It's the same with punctuated equilibrium.

Your right it would have to be more like straight-up "pantheism". It is the power of the universe that causes the change in the organisms in a punctuated way.

I didn't say anything like that, but I think that you're right if you remove the idea of "pantheism" and conscious agency of the Universe. Selection is the result of the interaction of an individual with its environment, which is the local expression of the "power of the universe." Punctuated equilibrium doesn't preclude pantheism (or any other -theism), but it's not helped by it, either; it's superfluous.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 33 by Difflugia]

This is entirely wrong. The observation behind punctuated equilibrium is that in general and from a population standpoint, fossil morphologies will be stable for geologically long periods of time. "Punctuating" those "equilibria" are geologically shorter periods of instability that result in larger morphological changes.

Read what you wrote; Equilibria is reached in shorter periods and result in larger morphological changes.

1st. How is this not "salvation" "a sudden and large mutational change from one generation to the next, potentially causing single-step speciation?"

2nd How could you possibly prove that it is not salvation. The whole reason why punctuated equilibrium was developed was because the fossil evidence interpreted with a naturalistic world view indicated speciation happen quickly with few or no transitional forms between species. And then there were many rock layers before the next or periods of time before the next speciation event happen.

3rd Since this is evidence of salvation how is salvation not Lamarkianism.


A much more logical theory is that all of the fossils were graveyards were deposited during the time of the flood. And the differences in fossils that we see in the different rock layers are due to the different environments in which organisms lived. Like for example, the reason we do not see humans with dinosaurs is not because they did not live at the same time but because they did not live in the same place. I do not think I would want to live next to a dinosaur. Just like I would not like to live next to lions and tigers and bears today.

None of this affects or says anything about the underlying mechanisms of short term (often called ecological time rather than geological) of evolution. Mutations still happen and natural selection still applies in an exactly Darwinian fashion. Punctuated equilibrium as a theory is the idea that morphologies tend to be conserved over long periods of time with nearly all morphological novelty being selected against as long as the stable equilibrium holds. The "classic" alternative is the gradual improvement of morphologies through time (i.e. a given organism should be a thousand years "better" than an ancestor from a thousand years ago).

The fossil record does not show Darwinian gradualism. it indicates punctuated equilibrium, which can be nothing other than salvation.

[Difflugia]

Read what you wrote; Equilibria is reached in shorter periods and result in larger morphological changes.

I read what I wrote again and I think it's correct, but I can't tell if you've misunderstood it or not. The shorter period is a period of instability. The longer period is the period of equilibrium. The instability is what allows the larger morphological changes, so larger net changes in morphology occur during the shorter periods of instability.

1st. How is this not "salvation" "a sudden and large mutational change from one generation to the next, potentially causing single-step speciation?"

Because it's not in a single generation or a single step. This is a process happening over tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, which is a short period of time in a geological context.

2nd How could you possibly prove that it is not salvation. The whole reason why punctuated equilibrium was developed was because the fossil evidence interpreted with a naturalistic world view indicated speciation happen quickly with few or no transitional forms between species. And then there were many rock layers before the next or periods of time before the next speciation event happen.

Are you arguing about what what the theory of punctuated equilibrium is, what you think it should be, or that it's wrong?

3rd Since this is evidence of salvation how is salvation not Lamarkianism.

I already explained Lamarckian evolution and don't understand why you think punctuated equilibrium is Lamarckian. Why do you?

A much more logical theory is that all of the fossils were graveyards were deposited during the time of the flood.

I see.

The fossil record does not show Darwinian gradualism. it indicates punctuated equilibrium...

So Eldredge and Gould argued.

...which can be nothing other than salvation.

No.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 35 by Difflugia]

Because it's not in a single generation or a single step. This is a process happening over tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, which is a short period of time in a geological context.

This is a fairy tale. You have no evidence of this in the fossil record. Layers rock according to naturalistic philosophy takes millions of years. A change in tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years cannot be measured according to naturalistic philosophy.

Are you arguing about what the theory of punctuated equilibrium is, what you think it should be, or that it's wrong?

I am arguing that you are choosing an interpretation that fits your belief system because there is no way to prove the fairy tale punctuated equilibrium. It could just as easily be saltation as the so-called punctuated equilibrium.

[Difflugia]

[Replying to post 36 by EarthScienceguy]

You said that nonrandom selection meant nonrandom mutation, which is Lamarckian.

I told you what I meant by nonrandom selection and explained Lamarckian evolution for you.

Then you said that punctuated equilibrium was based on the idea of saltation, is Lamarckian, and is pantheistic.

I explained punctuated equilibrium in enough detail that you should be able to see that none of those is true.

Now, even though I didn't offer an opinion one way or the other about punctuated equilibrium aside from explaining it, you're arguing that I should instead believe that huge evolutionary changes were instantaneous because I can't prove they weren't, even though that's not what you, yourself believe. Did I get that right?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 36 by EarthScienceguy]

This is a fairy tale. You have no evidence of this in the fossil record.

The fossil record is just one source of information available to (real) scientists. Genetics work over the last 4-5 decades has confirmed many details inferred from the fossil record, as well as providing a tremendous amount of new information that was not possible to extract solely from the analysis of fossils.

This kind of confirmation from multiple disciplines is completely foreign to biblical creationists because you have only one source of information (the bible). Its various stories, written by people living in the bronze age who had no knowledge of either the fossil record or genetics, or science in general, cannot compete with the tremendous body of knowledge humans have acquired since those ancient times.

Yet you continue to try and defend these old tales with the same tired arguments that AIG and similar organizations put out, and which have been thoroughly and convincingly debunked by modern science. You and your fellow creationists really need to come up with some other approach that isn't immediately shot down by high school level science.

[Bust Nak]

This is a fairy tale...

Whether any of these is a fairy tale or not, the least you can do is get the narrative correct. You are in no position to judge if these are fairy tale if you can't tell the difference between what evolution proposes and what Lamarckiansm proposes; can't tell the difference between the implications punctuated equilibrium and saltation.

[EarthScienceguy]

Now, even though I didn't offer an opinion one way or the other about punctuated equilibrium aside from explaining it, you're arguing that I should instead believe that huge evolutionary changes were instantaneous because I can't prove they weren't, even though that's not what you, yourself believe. Did I get that right?

No, not at all. I am saying that your "explanations" are not based on observation. I have already stated this but it is worth stating again. If the fossil record is interpreted with a naturalistic philosophy it demands punctuated equilibrium and not Darwinian gradualism.

People can explain all kinds of things but without facts to back it up, it means nothing. That is what I am saying.