The Origins of Life: A Catholic View (article)

[mcg]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761196

... Lewontin, who teaches genetics at Harvard, admits as much: "We take the side of science… in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." ...

... As for the fossil record, Steven Stanley, a paleontologist who teaches at Johns Hopkins, writes in The New Evolutionary Time Table that "the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." Darwin described the Cambrian explosion 540 million years ago as "inexplicable," and that remains the case. ...

... His reply is worth pondering: "Look, we know that species reproduce and that there are different species now than there were a hundred million years ago. Everything else is propaganda." ...

[HawkerHurricane]

1. His ability to read minds is impressive.

"People like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins and Richard Lewontin start with a philosophical premise: There is no God, therefore a purely materialistic explanation of everything, including us, must be true."

How does he know this? Could it be that Gould, Dawkins and Lewontin (and others) started with the premise "Let the evidence decide" and then did exactly that? And that after they let the evidence decide, discover there is no need for God in the process?

[beam me up scottie]

4. Anti-science woo woo thinking.

Begging the question, in other words.

Easier to make your case if you can start with the premise that science and scientists are anti-god.

[mcg]

12. A quote from Lewontin:

A quote from Lewontin (here he equates 'scientific' and 'science' to 'materialistic' and 'materialism'):

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

This clearly a case of circular reasoning. He (and some others) start with an assumption of materialism and reject any evidence to the contrary, his materialism is 'absolute'.

Dawkins said that even if he were to see a statue of the Virgin Mary wave to him, he would not assume a miracle took place. He said (in 'The Blind Watchmaker', which I've read) "Perhaps all the atoms of the statue's arm just happened to move in the same direction at once - a low probability event to be sure, but possible."
Dawkins wasn't really writing about a statue waving at him, what he was claiming was that no matter how implausible it seems that something happened by chance, 'Chance did it' anyway. Oh yes, you can throw in Necessity too, but that happened by Chance also, so it all comes down to 'Chance did it'. No need to actually understand how something happened, it's all very simple, 'Chance did it', the all-powerful god of Chance. Is any evidence needed? No, all it takes is a 'prior commitment' (i.e. faith).

What about preadaptions (exaptations or cooptions)? You know, like the legs on the Darwin fish? What's ironic is that those legs don't support Darwinism. Darwinists either deny preadaptions happened or claim 'Chance did it', no matter how miraculous they seem, 'Chance did it'. No need to deal with statistical chance, as in actually establishing that natural selection acted on a multitude of various mutations and that in fact it all happened extremely gradually. No, just claim 'Chance did it', even in the case of preadaptions, even in the case of the evolution of photochemicals used in color vision.

Oh yes, it's 'just by Chance' that chemical structures that served other purposes got duplicated, reassembled (assuming it did happen that way), and voila, photochemicals, not just sensitive to light, but sensitive to slight variations in an extremely narrow range of light precisely at the Sun's peak output of light, rapidly resettable, and part of an extremely complex mechanism that somehow triggers the sensation of various colors. Even though we have no explanation of qualia, such as colors, some claim they are 'materialistic' anyway, call them 'illusions', or even claim they don't exist!

The fact is, that is not a Darwinian scenario, evolution yes, but not Darwinian.

People should stop dumbing down this debate, pretending that it is simply a Dawkins vs. Gish type debate.

[beam me up scottie]

13. "Dumbing down this debate" ?

We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

Puh-leeze.

"failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life"

It doesn't get any dumber than that.

[HawkerHurricane]

20. Except...

there is no chance involved in natural selection.

To place such emphasis on 'chance' is to create a straw man.

[opiate69]

2. What a load of fallacious bull.

Example:
"Darwinists also muddle the discussion by failing to distinguish between "Darwinism" and "evolution." The idea of evolution has been around since the ancient Greeks. St. Augustine was a kind of evolutionist, although hardly a Darwinist. What Darwin did was suggest a simple mechanism -- natural selection -- to explain how evolution happened."

Wrong, Sparky.. the only people who fail to distinguish betwen Darwin's actual work and evolution are the knuckleheads with the jesus fish eating the darwin fish on the back of their cars. Those of us who actually know evolutionary theory know that it is not Darwin's theory.

"Man is a separate mystery altogether."
That's called "special pleading" and is contrary to intellectually honest debate.

[BadgerKid]

3. Just because

some observation is unexplained does not make it evidence of god(s).

[beam me up scottie]

5. Good point, BadgerKid.

And welcome to DU!

:hi:

[HereSince1628]

6. IMO Gould would agree transition fossils are generally missing

Indeed expansions of diversity within lineages seem burst into the fossil record with few intermediates. This led Gould and Elderidge to write a paper dealing with this "tempo and mode" in which they argued the generation of new species occurs as punctuated episodes between long periods of no change (equilibrium) hence the phrase punctuated equilibrium. Gould argued transition fossils generally don't exist because transitions occur only are present for very short (geologically speaking) spans of time.

I believe Lewontin was writing about unjustified interpretations of adaptation. In the not distant past the state of structures and functions was often interpreted as being adaptive and typically accompanied by stories of how that might have happened. Just so stories really have been tolerated when they shouldn't be. Lewontin and others rightly recognized these have often been accepted uncritically because they did not "wrinkle" the prevailing paradigms. These are the just so stories that Lewontin and Gould found troubling. Gould was particularly bothered by adaptive explanations for human structures and behavior that were generated by Evolutionary Psychology, and he frequently lamented them as just so stories.

Indeed the fossil record shows "turnover" in species and periods of both collapses in diversity and subsequent expansion.

[opiate69]

7. Since I have nothing better to do..

Since the Theory of Evolution touches on the subject of human origins, the Catholic Church naturally has a deep interest in the topic. There are three important questions: How does the creation account in Genesis square with what science can reasonably demonstrate about the origin of the universe and mankind?
It doesn't
What are the implications of Darwinian anthropology, which understands the human person to be an accidental "thing"?
A fundamental lack of understanding of Darwin's work. Surprise, surprise.
And what is the scientific status of the claims made by evolutionists who often disagree about major aspects of the theory?
What disagreements? Be specific. (hint..they're not nearly as "major" as the author would like you to believe)

Pope John Paul II, who had a deep interest in science, went a few steps beyond his predecessors in laying down some ground rules for approaching these issues.
BUlly for him..maybe one of these days the church will actually get in tune with the 20th century..too bad we're alredy in the 21st

First, the Book of Genesis is not a scientific textbook.
Truer words may have never before been commited to paper.(Or, in this case, a computer screen)
Written in an archaic, prescientific Hebrew idiom, it tells us what God did, not how he did it.
What God allegedly did... still waiting fo some corroboration... any corroboratoin
The highly figurative language of the "six days" of creation does not preclude a cosmic process that took billions of years to produce carbon-based life in a suburb of the Milky Way.
Interesting interpretation... I guess we're not being literalists about this particular part of the Bible then..

The Church has had no problem with evolutionary theory or the idea that the first humans had biological antecedents -- so long as divine causality is not kept out of the big picture.
Sorry..that's not how it works... you don't start with a conclusion.
The pope added that there had to have been an "ontological leap" from any presumed ancestor to homo sapiens.
Again, not particularly scientific..
In other words, we are not simply trousered apes -- something you can verify by trying to explain the Superbowl to the smartest chimpanzee.
?? My wife doesn't understand the Superbowl. Fallacious, specious and wholly worthless sentence.

What raises red flags for Catholics is not evolutionary theory per se, but materialist philosophy disguised as science.
Somehow I don't think so.. I'm guessing that what raises the flags for Catholics is the fact that their entire belief structure seems to be based on something for which there is no supporting evidence, and growing amounts of contraindicative evidence.
"The Church," wrote Pope John Paul II, "distrusts only preconceived opinions that claim to be based on science, but which in reality surreptitiously cause science to depart from its domain." There is no question that the writings of many Darwinists flunk this test.
Unless the author can back this assertion up with examples, he's merely farting in the wind.

People like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins and Richard Lewontin start with a philosophical premise: There is no God, therefore a purely materialistic explanation of everything, including us, must be true. But this is ideology, not science. Lewontin, who teaches genetics at Harvard, admits as much: "We take the side of science… in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."
Other posters have dealt with this..anything I have to say would be brought to you by the fepartment of redundancy department.

Unfortunately, this crusading materialism leads many Darwinists to make exaggerated claims about what we actually know about the origin of species.
Really? It would be nice if for once, instead of making baseless claims, this guy actually presented evidence of said claims.
Most textbooks still teach a brand of neo-Darwinism which Gould long ago declared "dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy."
And Gould is who?? Why do I give a shit what he has to say?

Darwinists also muddle the discussion by failing to distinguish between "Darwinism" and "evolution." The idea of evolution has been around since the ancient Greeks. St. Augustine was a kind of evolutionist, although hardly a Darwinist. What Darwin did was suggest a simple mechanism -- natural selection -- to explain how evolution happened.
See my other post
But neither the fossil record, nor breeding experiments, nor mathematical probability support the idea that small DNA copying errors "guided" by natural selection created everything from bacteria to human consciousness.
Another baseless claim with no evidence.. he seems to be fond of "it's true because I said so"
Leaving aside the vexed question of how DNA assembled itself in the first place, a significant minority of scientists (especially outside the Anglo-Saxon world) think that Darwinian selection is a grossly inadequate mechanism for the creation of complex life forms.
Let me guess..they're all creationist/IDers? I have to question their objectivity. (Espescially since he, again, fails to identifuy them)

As for the fossil record, Steven Stanley, a paleontologist who teaches at Johns Hopkins, writes in The New Evolutionary Time Table that "the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."
Again, is this guy the be-all, end-all of paleontology? Or is he another ID whack-job?
Darwin described the Cambrian explosion 540 million years ago as "inexplicable," and that remains the case.
As another poster alluded to, this doesn't automatically mean "Gawd did it",much less "My Gaws did it!!"
A man from Mars looking at the record since then would say that species replace other species, rather than evolve into them.
Non=sequiter

Several years ago, I had drinks with an evolutionary biologist who works at the Museum of Natural History in New York. I waited until he'd had a couple of beers and then said: "You claim that classical Darwinism is dead, and you're obviously not a creationist. So, what do you believe?" His reply is worth pondering: "Look, we know that species reproduce and that there are different species now than there were a hundred million years ago. Everything else is propaganda."
How many years ago? Many,many advances have been takingplace in the last 10 =25 years. (Not to mention, he's quoting a drunk guy fer christ's sake..)

We still lack a hard scientific story of how a batch of inorganic material morphed itself over billions of years into giraffes and trilobites.
God of the gaps, god of the gaps... (if I say it enough, it'llbe true!!!)
Man is a separate mystery altogether.
Special pleading.. you lose.
The explanatory glibness of much Darwinian literature retards, rather than helps, the scientific investigation of these issues.
No.. the idea of claiming some God is responsible for all the things we do not yet know the mechanisms for is what retards our understanding of the universe.
And, evolutionary theory turns out to be a rather weak stick with which to beat on religion.
Ha! Only to those who know less than the average 6th grader abour evolution.

[papau]

8. While current evolutionary theory is not Darwin's theory - as we try to

explain the bursts of change and the millions of years with little change -

This only stating the obvious. The lack of intermediates, the burst of new and then little change was the Punctuated equilibrium of Gould.

The fact the Gould is indeed "anti-God" should not affect our opinion of this latest and greatest theory for evolution.

Unjustified interpretations of adaptation is indeed a point Gould makes.

I see nothing in the article to jump on - by either atheist or believer.

And John-Paul 2 has a right to his opinion as to the point where Unjustified interpretations are really anti-God spin. I think he makes a mistake to fight the occasional anti-God spin, as most folks see it as it is, It would be like fighting some of the nuttier atheist postings at DU - which I have done on occasion but never with good results as the poster is always sure they have the right definition of english words, including the definition of what is science. It really is a pointless fight that John Paul should have avoided.

[opiate69]

9. everyone has a right to their opinion..

however, if someone is of the opinion that 2 plus 2 = 6, I am under no obligation to consider their opinion as anything more than ignorance and folly.

[papau]

10. I agree - but to guess where anti-God spin is flowing from a fellow like

Gould is pointless.

It is best to just evaluate the theory.

2 plus 2 = 6 is "obvious" ignorance - I do not find Hawkins or Gould all that obvious (well not quite true - Hawkins in his "popular" writings does get both silly, illogical, and obvious in his anti-God spin, but given his health he gets a pass from me)

[opiate69]

11. To those who know and truly understand evolution,

ID and creationism are as obviously incorrect as 2+2=6.

[papau]

14. obviously incorrect ?- without proof certainly - but obviously incorrect ?

There are huge holes in evolution theory as it now stands - even post Gould's "Punctuated equilibrium" - so I guess you are saying that "no answer" is a better answer than ID.

And that is certainly a valid opinion. Indeed that is the opinion of Pope John Paul 2 (and most other folks) in that there are areas of questions that science can not answer - perhaps can never answer.

But I do not agree with the Pope that the above fact - that there are areas of questions that science can not answer and perhaps can never answer - means that a scientist trying to find an answer outside of religion means his scientific writings are automatically rejected as "anti-God".

Again I feel it is better to judge the idea on its own merits.

Like Hawkin's love of the 'anthromorphic principle' which he notes implies a many universe option - which is an option his latest math rejects - but which in God debate he uses the 'anthromorphic principle' to say we are here/created because if we were not we would not notice the weird unexplainable observations as to the values of the variables required in the Big Bang theory to get us here, so no need for God and we are just the result of chance in the making of an infinite number of universes. And with an infinite number of universes to play with there is no big deal in the only set of variations that produce people are the set of variations that produced our universe. Indeed Stenger 's book (he is a theoretical physicist at the University of Hawaii)The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology discusses his research on the infinite universe idea and finds that indeed multiple many stared universes grow under our "laws" of science when the there are small changes in the variable parameters - but they are without life as we know it - and that only the 'anthromorphic principle' provides an explanation.

Don't try to find two much logic in the above - indeed it is turned around into a justification for God by saying that God must be a bell ringer since if any of the parameters of the universe were any different then ringing would be impossible.

Each version of the AP are as logical as each other.

It really is not required, nor possible, to prove via science either no god, or many gods, or a one god world as one journeys to the opinion that any of the above is "truth".

But if you are curious - in "God: The Evidence" Patrick Glynn sets out in layman's language the scientific evidence for the existence of God -an ultimately impossible task-no one can reason his way to faith-but Glynn's review of the scientific literature is compelling to many as to the "scientific" case for God.

[opiate69]

15. Huge holes?

Name them.

[HereSince1628]

16. Well, I'll put out a few problems, you can decide if they are "hugh!"

1) Microevolutionary mechanisms are _presumed_ to lead to macroevolutionary events (the one of primary importance being speciation).

Microevolution evolution is that area of evolutionary explanation that deals with changes in the frequency of alleles (shifts in gene frequency) in populations. Natural selection is a mechanism at this level. As are non-random mating, demographic bottle-necks, and mutation. All these mechanism influence change in the gene pools of populations. But the consequences of all these mechanisms don't necessarily lead to speciation so there is something going on that is more than the straight forward application of microevolutionary mechanisms. For sure it involces much more than the arithemtic accumulation of mutations that many posters (not you) describe on DU in the IC/Creation vs Evolution threads.

2) 2a. What the hell is a species? 2b. What the hell are the criteria that define a species?

Believe it or not the definition of species, a word at heart of evolution and forever enshrined in the 150 year old title "On the Origin of Species," is really a problem. There doesn't seem to be a single good definition. There are all sorts of definitions, but individual definitions tend to not be universally applicable to all types of "species" and all types of evolutionary evidence. If you can't define species and the whole theory is about the evolution of _species_ you have a major philosophical problem that is more than semantics.

"Species" as a terminology became embedded in the rhetoric of biology even before Darwin. It is unlikely that a term so old can come down to us and not be somewhat archaic. It may well impose constraints on evolutionary thinking that actually get in the way. From time to time many biologists have argued that "species" as used in common language don't exit in nature. Personally in my lectures I talk about "types" and must define how I limit that use every time it comes up.

3) There is no model of function/process that successfully and comprehensively bridges microevolutionary mechanisms and macroevolutionary consequences. The one thing we would really really like to explain--how increases in species diversty emerge (i.e. how the number of species increases) currently defies broad generalization (My personal solution to this is to admit that there is no single broad generalization to be had, but I am a very minor voice in the world of population biology).

So. There are some problems. I think they are sizable problems in evolutionary understanding. They don't deny evolution, but fixing them would be very very welcome.

But as in all things, the less you know about something, the less are you aware of its warts. People like me who work professionally in this field accept evolution even though we are aware of these problems. Unless pressed to deal with them we generally overlook them. We percieve them as problems in our understanding, not in our underlying belief that the diversity of species on this planet happened by natural mechanisms. Which is to say we DO have a committment to a paradigm and that commitment/belief exists despite missing evidence.

The general population doesn't have a clue about any of this.

[papau]

18. Well said - and understandable! - congrats on a great post! :-)

:-)

[trotsky]

26. Sheesh, did ya get those out of a 30-year-old Chick tract?

Seriously, those are some tired old ICR-style arguments against evolution.

1) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

2) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB801.html

Creation, defining things as kinds that were created once and for all, implies that all species should be clearly demarcated and that there should be a clear and universal definition of kind or species. Since there is not, creationism, not evolutionary theory, has something to explain.

3) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

To try and call these "problems" for evolution is ridiculous.

[HereSince1628]

27. IMO your talkingpoint bullets rather missed my point

I didn't say macroevolution didn't happen, and I didn't say that transitional fossils don't exist (although the other poster did).

The fossil record is a wonderful source of evidence that macroevolution took place. Indeed the patterns of changes in species richness in the paleontological record are the easiest database for most people to appreciate.

The issue I presented is the lack of models of macroevolutinary mechanism. There is a difference between evidence that something happened and evidence of how it happened, which I'll try to illustrate by analogy.

If someone finds human footsteps on Mars those footsteps would be pretty good evidence that a human had been there. With our current understanding, we would assume that the human who made them used a spacecraft of some type to get there (because we only know of humans as earth creatures and we know no other way humans move from planet to planet. Our assumptions are based on our prevailing understanding). Learning about that presumed spacecraft would be central to understanding just how the person who made those footsteps got there. But of themselves those footsteps wouldn't tell the observer what sort of spacecraft or propulsion system (mechanisms)was used to get them there (unless of course we determined they were our own footsteps and we might be suspicious of that as we initially consider the problem).

The fossil record shows that macroevolutionary events took place. It is repleat with emergence, disappearance, as well as increases and decreases in the richness of what paleontologists consider and in some cases what untrained observers can even recognize as discernible types. The fossil record decidedly shows the process isn't random, but it doesn't provide much information on mechanism(s). I am not the only person aware of this. I encourage you to read the literature as well as talkorigins talkingpoints. Niles Eldridge wrote a very readable book on macroevolution which on inspection is surprisingly devoid of discussions of mechamism. The continuing problem with finding macroevolutionary mechanisms was also discussed by Gould in his magnum opus on evolutionary theory.

If you carefully read what I wrote about species you will appreciate that I do not think that the concept of species provides neat demarcations of types. My point is actually that every time a discussion turns to "types" it requires definition of them. I am not suggesting in any way that some contemporary version of neo-Adansonianism needs to be developed and applied to evolution. I am not saying that the problem with the species concept negates the argument of evolution.

I am saying that the concept of species, which has been and remains central to religious, legal, and popular discussions of evolution, has a history of being troublesome inside science. In many respects it remains so.

The species concept problem undeniably presents a problem for creationists who discuss "species." But that doesn't negate it as a problem for biologists as well. On that point I think the one talkingpoint while being of rhetorical value in creation/evolution debates fails and is a bit of misdirection.

Why is having a clear "species concept" important? Because it guides the research.

Consider that a process is a temporal sequence of events. The very evidence of the process is recognition that something happens (which implies the presence of an underlying mechanism). We recognize something is happening by one or more changes in some discernible state. If a researcher can't accurately discern a change in state the researcher will not notice that a mechanism is indicated at that point in the process.

For macroevolution the primary focus used in the search for changes in state has been, and largely remains, related to the transition of one species to another one (anagenesis)or one species to more than one different species (cladogenesis).

The search for macroevolutionary mechanisms has been based on the search for phenomena that change those things we use to recognize _species_. Repeating for emphasis, the "species" concept guides the search.

Not surprisingly scientists typically search for something they expect to find. If scientists' concept of species is wrong, their idea of the speciation process will be at least partly wrong and they will search in the wrong locations in the process for the wrong things. For example, if we define types as genetic species and search only for molecular mechanisms, we will miss those evolutionary mechanisms that involve the ecological milieu in which the organisms live(d) and which conceivably constrain or relax the tempo and mode of evolution. If we recognize species as Mayr did and only consider mechanisms that could isolate lineages of sexually reproducing species, we end up knowing a handful of potential macroevolutionary mechanisms but they that can't be generalized to biotic forms that don't reproduce sexually. Even if there exists a solid definition of fossil species based on variation in structures and a paleontological pattern of change in these structure , the diacritical anatomical features employed in diagnosis probably result from mechanisms acting on physiological processes that can't be studied but only implied from the fossil record.

As I wrote previously, I don't believe there is ever going to be a single universally applicable definition of species. That leads me to the conclusion that the "rules" of macroevolution concerning speciation will likely be very dependent on their biological context.

Even when working in the same biotic lineage the criteria used to discern species by one biological discipline may be of much less value to the work of another biological discipline, for example paleontologists generally cannot use DNA evidence because it is generally lacking, not withstanding that some ancient DNA has proven recoverable.



There is dissatisfaction with the concept of species among evolutionary scientists. We typically invoke a working concept we feel appropriate to the biotic entities under study. We know that approach has limitations that will impact to some extent our ability to generalize from the work.

Regardless of the definition we invoke, during evolution the biotic entities studied may, but also may not, undergo changes of state in the applicable "species" characteristics in ways that present crisp signals in the data that records the events. As significant as "speciation" is to evolutionary theory it has proven extremely difficult to place under study. The timeframes required for study have a huge range and impose profound limitations on the types of organism that can be studied and the amount and quality of material available. When combined with limitations of our prevailing state of knowledge, the search for macroevolutionary mechanisms has been confoundingly difficult.

Stating that progress in the search for macroevolutionary mechanism continues to be limited and difficult, or even that we really lack good models of them, does not negate evolution or suggest that it lacks other compelling positive evidence.

The public discussion of evolution, and the public debate on evolution vs alternatives is generally uninformed. The species concept is one of the most commonly tossed around ideas in these discussions but it is perhaps the least appreciated term with respect to the theoretical and practical difficulties it presents.

[trotsky]

28. But what I fail to see

is how any of these things constitute "problems" for evolution. Areas to expand, areas to learn, sure, but the REAL problem is that by calling these things "problems" it opens the door right up for the IDers - it happened right in this very thread - to say "See, evolution has many problems it can't solve!" Now you and I both know (I hope) that this in no way demonstrates either that evolution is wrong, or that creationism or some other nonsense is right. But in this delicate and important battle for reason and science over superstition and ignorance, you have to be very careful about how you phrase things.

And the point about definition of species was just that - not having a set in stone definition is not a problem for evolution, but it most certainly is for "intelligent design"/creationism. There are clear definitions of species, at least for how you intend to use the concept. But in a way, that is a strength of science and evolution. I don't see it as a problem at all.

[HereSince1628]

29. I didn't present these as problems that undo evolution

My appreciation of the veracity of evolution is quite committed.

My objection is to the proliferation of mostly ill-informed discussion about something whose sophistication and centrality I appreciate as things of beautiful and utility. I don't usually jump into DU evolution threads because it's like trying to dress people in clean white jerseys who are rolling in the mud.

When I do enter, my interest is typically in trying to improve the discourse. If you look at my entry here it was just so for several of papau's posts and also to yours. Unfortunately, that is no guarantee that my comments aren't misunderstood and misused. Although I typically try to correct them once I'm involved in a thread as I did in my discussion about the survivability of unicellular ancestors to multicellular animals.

In general, people whose conceptual understanding supports biological evolution (and this includes me and I suspect nearly all evolution supporters on DU) are quite adept at implementing with no cognitive dissonance the universal antidote "it remains unknown." Now in all honesty and fairness much really does remain unknown about evolution. But also in fairness many people including biologists apply that explanation with little thought, never having really considered the critics' arguments.

As the early American cladists frequently pointed out casualness and its inherent lack of discipline was a hallmark to methods and argument in traditional evolutionary systematics. To progress the discipline needed to get much more formal. And scientists came quickly to agree notwithstanding some considerable noise about the new formality imposing its own intellectual straight jacket.

In general, public discussions about evolution turn into arguments that aren't particularly elevated. They tend to hurt my head in the same way that the music produced by elementary school orchestras and bands hurt the sensibilities of lovers of classical music.

[papau]

17. Three holes are the existing one cells needing for survival to become

multi-cell.....

plus the existence of a huge number of items that have "could not survive" labels on any proposed intermediary steps to their current structure.....

and indeed just the evolving of a cell membrane from a chemical attraction is of interest as we can not do - create - real cell membranes - although this may be better defined as a creation of life problem rather than an "evolution" proble,..

Gould answered - with a plausible answer but no cause specific to explain - the lack of intermediate steps in the fossil record and the lack of a smoothness of change one would expect in a random process.

There remain huge holes. The problem of course is that the concept of Darwin's evolution, as modified into "Punctuated equilibrium," is the only theory out there than can be called scientific. Indeed the next step is to find reasons for "Punctuated equilibrium" including reproducing the cause and effect.

The objects that can not survive except exactly as currently structured may well be explained in the future - or they may not be?

New Science comes about because old Science can just not explain or answer a question - but you have got to have faith and keep on trying for an explanation via the scientific method - LOL - "got to have faith" sounds like a religious mindset - and I guess if you demand that everyone agree that "science" WILL have an answer eventually you have indeed redefined science into a religion.

interesting... :-) :toast: :-)

[HereSince1628]

19. Punctuated equilibrium doesn't encompass enough to be THE theory

of biological evolution. It is a proposal of variation in the tempo and mode of mechanisms (that Gould actually did not discuss) that lead to "bursts" of diversity in the fossil record.

If you really want to get your head into a comprehensive explanation of what Gould believed you should read the book "The structure of Evolutionary Theory." As you will come to understand contemporary evolutionary theory is made up of many delimited areas of evolutionary explanation that can and are treated as independent theoretical components.

BTW Multicellularity is believed to have been derived from unicellularity, and there are various postulates about how that came about.

The explanations do not argue that the ancestral single cells couldn't survive as single cells. Your comment that such single cells couldn't survive sounds decidedly like an argument that multicelluarity is evidence of irreducible complexity.

Rather contemporary explanations tend to be adaptationist (a manner of thinking of which Gould was quite suspect) and suggest that multicellularity provided some advantage. Since most multicellular organisms reproduce sexually and a large but relatively few unicellular organisms reproduce sexually most of the proposed explanations suggest that the advantage had something to do with sexual reproduction which did originate in unicellular organisms. One argument that I ascribe to is that sexual reproduction has an extremely high cost for a diploid unicellular organism. The process of undergoing meiosis means that it can only produce haploid gametes once in its life. That's a big gamble since the environment or time of year might not be quite right for the survival of the resulting progeny. Being multicellular could allow the organism to reproduce more than once, mitosis could produce diploid cells that could undergo meiosis at different times and a multicellular organism could produce more than one episode of gamete production. That could provide an increase in "fitness." People are actively studying all manner of attributes of sexual and asexual reproduction in simple animals in order to gain understanding of this.

Also on the issue of singular cell vs multicell organism, within zoology (where my familiarity lies) there are some colonial unicellular organisms that aggregate, and modular, minimally differentiated, multicellular organisms whose cells survive nicely if disaggregated, even if the multicellular form is broken up into single cells. So we have living examples of multicellular organisms whose cells show a surprising level of potential independence from the aggregate they belong to.

You must remember when speaking of Gould's work that he was a paleontologist. Fossils leave a wonderful, but quite limited traces of mechanisms working on populations in the ecological time frames of days and months in which the mechanisms occur. Neontologists (biologists of still living things) are in a better position to evaluate mechanisms of inheritance and divergence. Even so it is true that there is no successful mechanistic model for speciation (divergence) that is broadly applicable. But there are some mechanisms that look like they cause divergence and some mechanisms that produce distinctly new "types" ( that could be considered incipient species but that word is hard to use for some biotic forms) that have been observed even in laboratories and in nature.

The question of the origins of cellular membranes is surely an important question in the transition from molecular-level evolution to the evolution cellular entities. Diffusion of biochemical constituents is _really_ hard on the life of a cell. Various studies _have_ produced auto-assembling membranes.

[papau]

22. Thank you very very much for the heads up - my "knowledge" comes

from a feeble attempt to read the literature - and I really appreciate being brought up to date.

We agree that mode of mechanisms was not discussed by Gould.

I shall try to get a read the book you recommend "The structure of Evolutionary Theory." Since as you say current work treats each problem as a "delimited areas of evolutionary explanation" I look forward to the "grand unifying theory" - or at least a better than current explanation of the move from one cell to human! :-)

I am aware of the multicellularity derived from unicellularity idea - but all I have seen so far is "clumping".

And just as we have no reason/mechanism for cell membrane to life, we have no reason for clumped cell membrane to life - and absolutely no reason/mechanism for life in single cell form moving to multi-cell - although the idea that once you got life in single cell the standard clumping might lead to multi-cell is interesting.

I do not argue that ancestral single cells couldn't survive as single cells - just that a survival of the fittest explanation does not seem to fit this part of evolution.

I really thank you for
"Rather contemporary explanations tend to be adaptationist (a manner of thinking of which Gould was quite suspect) and suggest that multicellularity provided some advantage. Since most multicellular organisms reproduce sexually and a large but relatively few unicellular organisms reproduce sexually most of the proposed explanations suggest that the advantage had something to do with sexual reproduction which did originate in unicellular organisms. One argument that I ascribe to is that sexual reproduction has an extremely high cost for a diploid unicellular organism. The process of undergoing meiosis means that it can only produce haploid gametes once in its life. That's a big gamble since the environment or time of year might not be quite right for the survival of the resulting progeny. Being multicellular could allow the organism to reproduce more than once, mitosis could produce diploid cells that could undergo meiosis at different times and a multicellular organism could produce more than one episode of gamete production. That could provide an increase in "fitness." People are actively studying all manner of attributes of sexual and asexual reproduction in simple animals in order to gain understanding of this."

but I have not seen discussions of sex driving one cell evolution to anything. I will have to look again The unicellular organisms that aggregate is to be expected from the chemistry.

But the exciting, and new to me at least, news is the disaggregated multicellular form -broken up into single cells - that survives very nicely as single cell. One wonders at the definition of "multi cell" that would allow such a result. Clump is such a fine word! :-)


The lack of a mechanism for speciation (divergence) is a problem - mutation is all that I have ever seen suggested. I had not heard the term "incipient species" but I like it! :-)

auto-assembling membranes are indeed produced - but not membranes that appear to have all the cell membrane functions (a PHD Bio friend of mine sorta disputes this with me - but agrees that there is much more to learn before we can say we can produce a cell membrane.

And transition from molecular-level evolution to the evolution cellular entities, and just why DNA, mean the research will go on long after I am dead.

It is neat to find out how things work - and to guess at why - and I don't "disbelieve" evolution because of the holes in a theory - I just don't "believe" anything which claims the name science because science last I looked was not about belief.

"ID" is about belief, but then "Science will always solve and answer and explain all questions" is equally about belief.

Right now I just find science "neat" and wish I had gone into it and added a few bits to the sum total of human knowledge rather than using math to make a few dollars in the non-science sector. But what is done is done. I am glad to find a DUer that is doing good things in science!

:toast:

:-)

[HawkerHurricane]

21. "no answer"

Yes, 'no answer' is better than a tautology like ID. It is better to admit "I don't know" than to say "Because I don't know, God must have done it."

ID in three statements:
1. We don't know how <that> happened.
2. We'll never know how <that> happened.
3. Therefore, God did <that>.

#1 may or may not be true.
#2 is almost certainly not true.
#3 is bad logic and worse theology. It is a 'God of the Gaps' arguement, forcing God into every gap in our knowledge. The question becomes... what happens to God when we close the gap?

God Did <that> is not the default. We Don't Know (Yet) is the default.

[papau]

23. Some things science may never be able to answer - and if those

questions are answered by "God" for some folks, while others are content with the idea that there is no answer, we should still be able to get both groups to "get along"!

:toast:

:-)

[HawkerHurricane]

24. The problem comes...

when the "answer must be God" folks try and push the idea into the science classroom.

[papau]

25. I agree

:toast:

:-)