Evolution Demonstrated In A Laboratory

[Swammerdami]

evolutionary theory can only predict future change in allele frequencies, with no idea what those changes will produce.

Oh I think we can make good guesses. In the oceans, vertebrates, hard-shell creatures and perhaps corals will be decimated, and replaced with jellies, octopi, etc. (This is the result of man-made changes to ocean and atmosphere composition.) Flying Insects, Frogs and many Bird families are being decimated.

AFAIK for humans, it is lactase-persistence which was the big winner ุcirca 6000 years ago. Any other recent evolutionary advances for H. sapiens? Is the Far-East altruism genetic or cultural? If more coronaviruses are on their way, evolution will select those with natural tolerance. If man conquers malaria, there will be less sickle-cell anemia.

 

[Jarhyn]

Those changes will produce evolutionary fitness.

That’s a fluid value, entirely dependent upon the fitness landscape. No telling what “fitness” is going to look like tomorrow.

Some types of fitness are "meta-fitness" types, which will be strongly selected for, such as the ability to select genetics without eliminating the DNA itself, or select or deselect some idea without eliminating the idea.

These are, have been, and will continue to be strongly selected for, as long as there is room in the genome to spare and still survive.

Sometimes, lean times come and libraries end up getting burned, or collapse, or left behind.

The genetic library is no different.

The library of ideas among humans minds is no different.

It has been proven that new books with new ideas may be written, and oftentimes they are better than the old ones, and the old ones hang around but hopefully only come back into vogue if they contain useful knowledge. Too often, books containing useful knowledge are lost rather than getting a good scrape and look-see if it's got anything going for it.

Evolution very clearly has some things it's going to do in general, too.

@Swammerdami The sickle cell gene may not go away but the trait may end up methylated and documented, as many endogenous retroviruses are.

 

[Elixir]

Some types of fitness are "meta-fitness" types, which will be strongly selected for, such as the ability to select genetics without eliminating the DNA itself, or select or deselect some idea without eliminating the idea.

These are, have been, and will continue to be strongly selected for, as long as there is room in the genome to spare and still survive.

Well yeah - turns out what used to be called "junk dna" is probably pretty important to adaptation. Is there a theoretical limit afaik to "space in the genome"? I'd think not, especially if we evolved from prokaryotes. A species of Japonica has a genome with like 150, billion base pairs.
I suppose if we knew of every environment and other triggers, we could predict what latent pairs could become active under what conditions. But there would be no certainty to it, and it would still be down to probabilities.

Too often, books containing useful knowledge are lost rather than getting a good scrape and look-see if it's got anything going for it.

Yeah - thank god for convergent evolution, eh? Nice to have backup plans. There are infinite ways to skin most cats, I suppose.

 

[steve_bank]

Are human arms likely to evolve into wings?

As an evolutionary path evolves it would seem the range of adaptaions narrows.

 

[Jarhyn]

Some types of fitness are "meta-fitness" types, which will be strongly selected for, such as the ability to select genetics without eliminating the DNA itself, or select or deselect some idea without eliminating the idea.

These are, have been, and will continue to be strongly selected for, as long as there is room in the genome to spare and still survive.

Well yeah - turns out what used to be called "junk dna" is probably pretty important to adaptation. Is there a theoretical limit afaik to "space in the genome"? I'd think not, especially if we evolved from prokaryotes. A species of Japonica has a genome with like 150, billion base pairs.
I suppose if we knew of every environment and other triggers, we could predict what latent pairs could become active under what conditions. But there would be no certainty to it, and it would still be down to probabilities.

Too often, books containing useful knowledge are lost rather than getting a good scrape and look-see if it's got anything going for it.

Yeah - thank god for convergent evolution, eh? Nice to have backup plans. There are infinite ways to skin most cats, I suppose.

Well, there are infinitely many ways to skin infinitely many cats, bull thankfully there's still an infinite number of cats there's only one way to skin, too, is my point, and some properties are like that. Or perhaps a better way to say it is necessary for all those cats that they still require A way to be skinned for evolution to work at all.

There will be strong pressure to create an equivalent implementation of any one of those things.

 

[Elixir]

there's still an infinite number of cats there's only one way to skin

Lol! Well put. Of course in the case of biota on planet earth, “infinite” means “for all practical purposes”.

 

[bilby]

It can make some predictions, but certainly not about such concrete things as what species will be around and look like a few million or or even a few tens of thousands of years hence.

Well, it can't make unconditional predictions about those things, but then, there's nothing wrong with a prediction of the form "If A then B".

The problem isn't making predictions, but in assessing all the confounding factors.

"An object in motion will continue in motion, unless acted upon by a force" is a prediction. To point out that the orbit of Jupiter around the Sun is predictable thousands of years into the future is simply to say that we anticipate the absence of any unexpected forces. If a rogue planet was to pass through the solar system, the details of the prediction could be incorrect, even though the underlying predictive statement would remain true.

All our theoretical predictions are hedged by conditions. In biology, the unavoidable complexity of the subject matter makes those conditions proliferate beyond our ability to account for them all, but this is a difference of scale, not a difference of kind. (And as any YEC will tell you, differences within a 'kind' are perfectly acceptable and are not evidence of anything)

 

[pood]

It can make some predictions, but certainly not about such concrete things as what species will be around and look like a few million or or even a few tens of thousands of years hence.

Well, it can't make unconditional predictions about those things, but then, there's nothing wrong with a prediction of the form "If A then B".

The problem isn't making predictions, but in assessing all the confounding factors.

"An object in motion will continue in motion, unless acted upon by a force" is a prediction. To point out that the orbit of Jupiter around the Sun is predictable thousands of years into the future is simply to say that we anticipate the absence of any unexpected forces. If a rogue planet was to pass through the solar system, the details of the prediction could be incorrect, even though the underlying predictive statement would remain true.

All our theoretical predictions are hedged by conditions. In biology, the unavoidable complexity of the subject matter makes those conditions proliferate beyond our ability to account for them all, but this is a difference of scale, not a difference of kind. (And as any YEC will tell you, differences within a 'kind' are perfectly acceptable and are not evidence of anything)

Yeah, I was actually going to mention Newton’s prediction, and point out the same thing, that our predictions about orbits will hold indefinitely far into the future UNLESS acted upon by an outside force, in this case, as you note, a rogue planet, to take one example. And I think that’s right, too, that the conditions involved in biological prediction quickly proliferate beyond our ability to account for them. I think the point is that disciplines like physics and cosmology are much cleaner or simpler in the sense that conditions affecting the predictions and onclusions are much fewer and can quickly be abstracted away, as Newton’s prediction does — because in fact the “unless”conditional in the second clause seems universal. Every object is ultimately acted on by an outside force, if only by gravity, which pervades the universe. But we can then predict how an outside force, if we can mesure it, will affect the object in question. We really can’t do that with evolution and in fact, a lot of evolution is just genetic drift, not natural selection at all, which at least can be quantified to some extent. Drift can’t.

 

[Elixir]

the conditions involved in biological prediction quickly proliferate beyond our ability to account for them.

What I woulda tried to say, thanks!
“Predictions are tough especially if they’re about the future.”
- I forget who

 

[pood]

Are human arms likely to evolve into wings?

As an evolutionary path evolves it would seem the range of adaptaions narrows.

I think Ernst Mayr talked about that in one of his books, how evolution is constrained by its own prior adaptations. He may even has used the example above, that humans were now constrained against evolving wings, though I may be misrememberting.

 

[Jarhyn]

It can make some predictions, but certainly not about such concrete things as what species will be around and look like a few million or or even a few tens of thousands of years hence.

Well, it can't make unconditional predictions about those things, but then, there's nothing wrong with a prediction of the form "If A then B".

The problem isn't making predictions, but in assessing all the confounding factors.

"An object in motion will continue in motion, unless acted upon by a force" is a prediction. To point out that the orbit of Jupiter around the Sun is predictable thousands of years into the future is simply to say that we anticipate the absence of any unexpected forces. If a rogue planet was to pass through the solar system, the details of the prediction could be incorrect, even though the underlying predictive statement would remain true.

All our theoretical predictions are hedged by conditions. In biology, the unavoidable complexity of the subject matter makes those conditions proliferate beyond our ability to account for them all, but this is a difference of scale, not a difference of kind. (And as any YEC will tell you, differences within a 'kind' are perfectly acceptable and are not evidence of anything)

Yeah, I was actually going to mention Newton’s prediction, and point out the same thing, that our predictions about orbits will hold indefinitely far into the future UNLESS acted upon by an outside force, in this case, as you note, a rogue planet, to take one example. And I think that’s right, too, that the conditions involved in biological prediction quickly proliferate beyond our ability to account for them. I think the point is that disciplines like physics and cosmology are much cleaner or simpler in the sense that conditions affecting the predictions and onclusions are much fewer and can quickly be abstracted away, as Newton’s prediction does — because in fact the “unless”conditional in the second clause seems universal. Every object is ultimately acted on by an outside force, if only by gravity, which pervades the universe. But we can then predict how an outside force, if we can mesure it, will affect the object in question. We really can’t do that with evolution and in fact, a lot of evolution is just genetic drift, not natural selection at all, which at least can be quantified to some extent. Drift can’t.

Well, in the end all quantities in a quantum reality are really just abstraction across different qualities, the actual quantum states.

Some can be organized in ways that allow abstracting the many qualities in a countable way.

To that extent while we can't look at it as a quantity, we can still look at it as an objective difference at least, and as a growth of a potential in the system.

 

[EricH]

You've got a holy book that only goes back a couple thousand years, and hasn't seen any updates.

Waitaminit! No updates? Why are there a shitload of versions then? Queen James alone added and subtracted whole swaths.

Ah good...
... to both your responses.
The religious are up-to-date, quite up there with the non-religious, which in fact means they're also in the scientific community! How's about that? The only thing perhaps, is that atheists need to update their arguments.

I don't have an argument. I have a fossil record. One that you are denying exists.

No not denying anything accept , the fossil records has had its issues.

Hi Learner. Sounds like you know what you are talking about. Can you cite a few of the known issues with the fossil record so we can discuss?

Hi Eric,

I remember there were certain discoveries and experiments that's all. I got to go through old notes (better discussing via desktop- edited this post 7 times). Not going to give much on the top of my head, there were dating issues some years back, with fossil examinations, for example..finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones after the process of dissolving the minerals within the bones. Some these bones IIRC were discovered buried near the surface. This was some years back but things like these did cause a few issues. ( I just got to revise a bit).

Hi. I don't understand why you are not able make a cohesive argument to support your assertion that the fossil record "has issues". What was the issue with the so called soft tissue discovered under a SEM in a bone believed to be many millions of years old? Have you read the original paper, the peer reviews and further work that developed upon this finding? What is the scientific consensus on this finding today?

You casually throw aside many millions of hours of hard work by scientists and millions of fossils that have advanced our knowledge of the history of life with a casual statement like "the fossil record has issues" when you appear to know nothing about the subject. You haven't given me much to respond to, so I looked up your profile and read your posts on similar topics. I discovered that you often interject authoritative sounding opinions in such discussions and also make it painfully obvious that you possess neither knowledge or experience in the area to be speaking from such authority. This is typical creationist behavior.

The most energetic criticisms of fossil finds are often generated by other scientists working in the field. Take for example the recent series of papers by Lee Berger regarding the Homo naledi finds in the Rising Star cave system in Africa. Dr Berger concluded that H naledi engaged in the practice of ritual burial of the dead and also created artwork on cave walls based on evidence that can best be described as sketchy. The problem here is that H naledi had a cranial capacity of 400cc, and Dr Berger's conclusions about the placement and provenance of the buried remains can likely be explained just as well by natural causes. Dr Berger was crucified in the peer review process, and rightly so in my opinion. So yes, there are sometimes issues with the findings of scientists, but those are almost always corrected by other scientists. And the discovery of the fossils is of enormous significance in advancing our knowledge of hominins, no matter that controversy surrounding some of the interpretations provided by the Principal Scientist. To provide commentary and criticism of someone's work you need to have a minimum degree of qualification in the subject, and it is clear to me that you do not pass this admittedly low bar.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You've got a holy book that only goes back a couple thousand years, and hasn't seen any updates.

Waitaminit! No updates? Why are there a shitload of versions then? Queen James alone added and subtracted whole swaths.

Ah good...
... to both your responses.
The religious are up-to-date, quite up there with the non-religious, which in fact means they're also in the scientific community! How's about that? The only thing perhaps, is that atheists need to update their arguments.

I don't have an argument. I have a fossil record. One that you are denying exists.

No not denying anything accept , the fossil records has had its issues.

Hi Learner. Sounds like you know what you are talking about. Can you cite a few of the known issues with the fossil record so we can discuss?

Hi Eric,

I remember there were certain discoveries and experiments that's all. I got to go through old notes (better discussing via desktop- edited this post 7 times). Not going to give much on the top of my head, there were dating issues some years back, with fossil examinations, for example..finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones after the process of dissolving the minerals within the bones. Some these bones IIRC were discovered buried near the surface. This was some years back but things like these did cause a few issues. ( I just got to revise a bit).

Hi. I don't understand why you are not able make a cohesive argument to support your assertion that the fossil record "has issues". What was the issue with the so called soft tissue discovered under a SEM in a bone believed to be many millions of years old? Have you read the original paper, the peer reviews and further work that developed upon this finding? What is the scientific consensus on this finding today?

This is one of Learner's trap, the typical, when called on something 'I know nothing, I need to look it up', alleging they actually have studied anything and are arguing in good faith.

 

[Elixir]

The most energetic criticisms of fossil finds are often generated by other scientists working in the field.

Theist critics of science never seem able to understand this. They think scientists get ahead by agreeing with each other, like theists do within their own sect.
In fact, there is not a scientist alive who doesn’t dream of the day when they can overturn current understandings. The more well accepted the paradigm, the more fame and riches await the person who can upset it.
The power of projection is great; Learner cannot possibly imagine scientists striving to prove each other wrong; no theist ever does that to a fellow sect or cult-mate. He obviously thinks the job of proving current scientific understanding wrong, falls to science-ignorant theists.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The most energetic criticisms of fossil finds are often generated by other scientists working in the field.

Theist critics of science never seem able to understand this. They think scientists get ahead by agreeing with each other, like theists do within their own sect.
In fact, there is not a scientist alive who doesn’t dream of the day when they can overturn current understandings. The more well accepted the paradigm, the more fame and riches await the person who can upset it.
The power of projection is great; Learner cannot possibly imagine scientists striving to prove each other wrong; no theist ever does that to a fellow sect or cult-mate. He obviously thinks the job of proving current scientific understanding wrong, falls to science-ignorant theists.

It's like they think that scientists are convinced of something because there is consensus, whereas it is the opposite: there is consensus when all the scientists are convinced of something.

 

[James Brown]

Or the latest finding is contrary to the sanitized, watered-down, cartoon version of the science that's disseminated to the uneducated masses.

"Fossils old, fossils hard as rock. Now fossils 'soft tissue'? Me suspicious. Something sneaky going on."

"Old species change to new species? How come there are still monkeys? Something fishy."

 

[Elixir]

"Old species change to new species? How come there are still monkeys? Something fishy."

Don’t even get started on fish evolution!
I’d be tempted to ask Learner to explain the discovery process of Tiktaalik. Last time I asked a theist about that was years ago. His answer? “Easy! They just looked in the fish layer!”
Took me a week to stop laughing.

 

[James Brown]

I’d be tempted to ask Learner to explain the discovery process of Tiktaalik.

I dare ya.

 

[EricH]

The most energetic criticisms of fossil finds are often generated by other scientists working in the field. Take for example the recent series of papers by Lee Berger regarding the Homo naledi finds in the Rising Star cave system in Africa. Dr Berger concluded that H naledi engaged in the practice of ritual burial of the dead and also created artwork on cave walls based on evidence that can best be described as sketchy. The problem here is that H naledi had a cranial capacity of 400cc, and Dr Berger's conclusions about the placement and provenance of the buried remains can likely be explained just as well by natural causes. Dr Berger was crucified in the peer review process, and rightly so in my opinion. So yes, there are sometimes issues with the findings of scientists, but those are almost always corrected by other scientists. And the discovery of the fossils is of enormous significance in advancing our knowledge of hominins, no matter that controversy surrounding some of the interpretations provided by the Principal Scientist. To provide commentary and criticism of someone's work you need to have a minimum degree of qualification in the subject, and it is clear to me that you do not pass this admittedly low bar.

Learner, to be clear, I am not saying that there are issues with the H naledi fossil finds. The controversy I am talking about relates to inferences about state of mind - ritual burial practices and art creation attributed to H naledi by the Principal Investigators without much discussion to support them. And also to be absolutely clear, the Rising Star cave site is magnificent, one of the best sites humans have uncovered in the history of paleontology. The fossil remains include bones from more than 15 individuals, some of were found to be almost fully articulated at the time of discovery, including one skeleton of a juvenile male that appeared to have have been buried with a tool in its hand. A tool that may have been used to carve some of the pictographs found on the cave walls at the entrance to the Dinaledi chamber, which is the deepest part of the cave accessible to humans, and the spot where multiple burial sites are located. The Rising STar site adds information about a new species that visited the caves some 250,000 years ago. They were remarkably like humans and other species belonging to the genus Homo in that they used fire, they crafted hand tools, and they appear to have been emotionally attached to members of their community and families, to the point where they would navigate an extremely challenging path to the deepest chambers of the cave in near total darkness in order to place their dead there. But they had tiny brains, just a third the size of modern humans, which appears to beg the question - were they really capable of sophisticated, abstract thinking as the investigators seem to suggest?

 

[steve_bank]

he most energetic criticisms of fossil finds are often generated by other scientists working in the field.

There are credentialed creationist scientists who energetically criticize and reject evolution. Becasue there may be unecpainable gaps in the fossil record creationism must be true. You can find some on the Discovery Institute site.

The fossil record is incomplete, as such it can be open to interpretation and debate withing the archeological and TOE science communities. I imagine in the respective fields there can energetic even downright hostile debate and differences, but then that is how science advances.

Energetic debate does not mean TOE is rejected.