Theories - Origin of Life

[wbla3335]

Therefore, allocating the role of the designer to “the natural world” also seems to be quite subjective to me, and I don’t see how one can rationally quantify it (likely or unlikely…)

Everything that goes on in heads is subjective, but some of it can be based on evidence. In the absence of evidence for the supernatural, some of us consider the natural to be more likely. Some of us don't.

And he usually provides links to the opinions of the more-than-qualified individuals.

He provides links to studies. The opinions he gives are his own. The authors of the studies are not claiming the falsification of evolution nor the existence of a designer.

[ughaibu]

That’s a matter of his opinion of course. . . .

Does this mean that there's no argument?

. . . . but judging by his credentials, that opinion is worthy of consideration.

Not at all. Either he has an argument or he hasn't.

[scottie]

wbla3335
Well now you appear to have said it all

I'm a fan of Dawkins the biologist, not Dawkins the atheist. But the guy's 70 years old - I don't think he was forced to retire, as you imply

Perhaps another primer, this time for a fan of Richard Dawkins, is in order.

Education DPhil, MA
Occupation Ethologist (The scientific study of animal behavior, especially as it occurs in a natural environment )

Dawkins studied zoology under Niko Tinbergen, the Dutch Nobel prize-winning ethologist. Tinbergen had already outlined his idea that plants and animals could be described as survival machines for genes.

He was awarded the Michael Faraday Prize for "excellence in communicating science to UK audiences".

Also the Kistler Prize in recognition for original contributions "to the understanding of the connection between human heredity and human society.

Has he published any peer reviewed papers on evolutionary biology?
I have searched and cannot find any, perhaps you could help here as you regard him as a biologist.

He has written several books and had some ideas on biological evolution.
His selfish gene concept (not peer reviewed of course) has been shown to be wrong.

He certainly is an outspoken atheist and a prominent critic of religion.

So as you are a fan of him as a biologist, please inform this forum (not me personally as I am clearly not deserving of your educational prowess ) what contribution has he made to biology?.
Now you say you are not a fan of him as an atheist.
Well what else is he known for?
Now as Nick7 states

At the same time you offer little to debunk Scottie’s statements,

I think Nick7 is being kind to you.
You have offered nothing to refute my statements except continually sliding into “god speak” as some sort of authority in the name of science.
Nick7 is also right when he says that I have only cited references from the peer reviewed evolutionary publications.

I am though, more cautious than him in regarding them as your peers as you have not demonstrated any willingness to convey exactly what evidence you rely on to buttress your apparent atheism. All that has emanated from you is a philosophical rant.
But where is the science?
I’m afraid the evidence shows you as a fan of Dawkins the atheist, not Dawkins the biologist.
I see no evidence that he is/was a biologist, even though the poor fellow is now 70 years old, a good age though, I’ll have you know.
However he doesn’t seem to have benefited much from maturity.

I would advise not to go down his path, unless you wish to be regarded as an embarrassment to the scientific community and as Michael Ruse (philosopher of biology, aged 72 currently at Forida State University) describes as, “pig ignorant”.

[wbla3335]

But where is the science?

None of this is about the science, scottie. I doubt that any amount of science will prevent you from filtering everything through your faith. We've tried to explain to you how science works, but you don't seem to be catching on. Not much I can do about that, apparently.

It sounds like you have an issue with Dawkins.

[scottie]

I have come across an article in New Scientist which bears on the subject of Natural Selection.
another fundamental pillar of darwinian evolution.

You will find the article here
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9 ... rming.html

The actual paper is from Science and is here
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5794/1773
entitled
Global Genetic Change Tracks Global Climate Warming in Drosophila subobscura

Ok

The researchers conclude that populations of fruit flies on three separate continents have independently evolved identical gene changes within just two decades, apparently to cope with global warming.

What we're showing is that global warming is leaving its imprint on genes," says Raymond Huey at the University of Washington in Seattle, US, who made the discovery with colleagues. "For this to happen in such a short time-frame in so many parts of the world is rather disturbing, he says

The article goes on

These changes, called inversions - constituting a flip of the order of DNA sections - tally with latitude and, by implication, with ambient temperatures.

So these inversions are proportional to average temperatures. This of course means that random mutations are clearly not involved and random mutations is a key driving force in Darwinian evolution.

Furthermore, since there is this direct connection between temperature (environmental pressure)
and the amount of this inversion (the researchers are connecting this with global warming,) how does Natural selection fit this data?
Natural selection as we know, is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

This is evidently a programmed response to climate (temperature) change.
Once again we see the darwinian process failing to account for the data.

[AstraSequi]

So these inversions are proportional to average temperatures. This of course means that random mutations are clearly not involved and random mutations is a key driving force in Darwinian evolution.

Furthermore, since there is this direct connection between temperature (environmental pressure)
and the amount of this inversion (the researchers are connecting this with global warming,) how does Natural selection fit this data?

Maybe the mutations are common enough that they happen all the time?

Or maybe the mutation occurred once or twice and then spread through the population by interbreeding, with the final frequencies indicating the selective advantage in each particular environment.

Or maybe the mutation was already at a low frequency in the population (say, 1%), and was neutral until the recent changes.

Natural selection as we know, is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

It is an optimization process. It has no long-term goal, but it most certainly does have a short-term one, for each individual generation - and that is to maximize reproductive success.

This is evidently a programmed response to climate (temperature) change.

Then you should expect that the same amount of temperature change should promote the same amount of mutations. If you look at figure 2 in the paper you cited, this is not the case. Unless the programmed response you are suggesting has some randomness in it.

[wbla3335]

Your beliefs, scottie, are shared by very few people in this world, and you may want to ask yourself why that is. There are lots of theists, fewer deists, even fewer deists who believe that their deity tinkers with its creation, and even fewer deists who believe that their deity micromanages its creation. Your efforts to find support for your beliefs in the findings of science are futile. The only support you're finding is in your interpretations, which are not the result of an open or rational mind.

Concerning your latest effort, I don't have access to the original article, but from what you have provided, i can find no claim that the same inversions originated independently in the different populations (only that the frequencies of the inversions in the different populations are the same). Does the original article make the claim of independent origin?

[AstraSequi]

Does the original article make the claim of independent origin?

No - in fact, the populations discussed in the paper share very recent common ancestry (the North and South American populations were founded from the Old World populations within the last 35 years), and the inversions have been known about as pre-existing polymorphisms in various Drosophila species for nearly that long.

[wbla3335]

No - in fact, the populations discussed in the paper share very recent common ancestry (the North and South American populations were founded from the Old World populations within the last 35 years), and the inversions have been known about as pre-existing polymorphisms in various Drosophila species for nearly that long.

Thanks Astra. So the "independently evolved identical gene changes" are just shifts in frequencies resulting from selection.

[scottie]

AstraSequi

Maybe the mutations are common enough that they happen all the time?

Or maybe the mutation occurred once or twice and then spread through the population by interbreeding, with the final frequencies indicating the selective advantage in each particular environment. 

Or maybe the mutation was already at a low frequency in the population (say, 1%), and was neutral until the recent changes. 

Quite a few maybes here.
What then would be your favoured maybe?

(Now I stated that)
Natural selection as we know, is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

Your response

It is an optimization process. It has no long-term goal, but it most certainly does have a short-term one, for each individual generation - and that is to maximize reproductive success. 

Actually my description of Natural Selection is a direct quote from the NIH and University of California credited teaching site.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

If you have a different view of NS then may I suggest you correct this august body as it does appear to disagree with your understanding. I am sure they will consider your amendment seriously.

Then you should expect that the same amount of temperature change should promote the same amount of mutations. If you look at figure 2 in the paper you cited, this is not the case. Unless the programmed response you are suggesting has some randomness in it. 

Firstly please notice that the concluding reference to NS by the above referenced site states very clearly

 Natural selection is NOT random!

Now back to the paper I cited
It recognises that 4 of the 26 data sets were problematic, however just note their response to comments on this matter
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5818/1497.2.full

Finally, with regard to our own study, 4 of 26 samples are indeed problematic, but our original conclusions hold when those samples are excluded. We stand by our original conclusion that global genetic change in D. subobscura is tracking global warming and is not a sampling artifact.

The authors were responding to comments from researchers with more knowledge on this matter that either you or I, so in the absence of a further questioning I am happy the accept that they have responded with credibility.

So I hold to my statement that, since this genetic change is tracking global warming it is therefore evidently a programmed response to climate (temperature) change.

Why else would Dr Huey find this data disturbing?
His words

For this to happen in such a short time-frame in so many parts of the world is rather disturbing

[JackBean]

scottie, you get obviously confused mutations and natural selections. Mutations ARE random, the selection is NOT.

[AstraSequi]

Maybe the mutations are common enough that they happen all the time?

Or maybe the mutation occurred once or twice and then spread through the population by interbreeding, with the final frequencies indicating the selective advantage in each particular environment. 

Or maybe the mutation was already at a low frequency in the population (say, 1%), and was neutral until the recent changes. 

Quite a few maybes here.
What then would be your favoured maybe?

...It doesn't matter. You said that the only possible conclusion was that it was a programmed response, and I gave you three possible ways in which it might not be. If you want to maintain your conclusion, then you have to show that all of these are incorrect, not just one.

That being said, I think you should be able to interpret based on the information in my last post which one is probably the most likely.

Natural selection as we know, is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.
...
Actually my description of Natural Selection is a direct quote from the NIH and University of California credited teaching site.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

I apologize - I made an equivocation fallacy over the word "goal," with a meaning that I think is incorrect anyways. Always admit your errors.

The point I was trying to make was that if you apply the same environmental stress to different populations of the same species, it is expected that they will probably change in similar ways. The change is still directional, and will be in the same direction every generation.

Reproductive success is the criterion that allows for natural selection, and under selective pressure each generation changes in response to this criterion. My use of the word "goal" was meant to refer to the animals themselves, for whom reproductive success is indeed the goal, and who can take action towards that goal. (Though to be strict I suppose we should only use the word for those organisms with neural processing ability.)

Also, it's generally considered good form to list a source when you quote it word-for-word.

Firstly please notice that the concluding reference to NS by the above referenced site states very clearly

 Natural selection is NOT random!

As far as I can tell, the argument in your above post was that natural selection was random, and thus could not result in evolution - or at least, reproducible evolution. If this is the case, please decide what your position is.

Natural selection takes initial randomness, in the form of mutations, and eliminates all the randomness that does not fall "in the right direction," so to speak. Refer to Jack's previous post.

Now back to the paper I cited
It recognises that 4 of the 26 data sets were problematic, however just note their response to comments on this matter...["We stand by our original conclusion that global genetic change in D. subobscura is tracking global warming and is not a sampling artifact."]

I never said that there was anything wrong with their data. I said that their data do not support your assertion that the
response must be "programmed."

As I said above: if you have a programmed response,

then you should expect that the same amount of temperature change should promote the same amount of mutations. If you look at figure 2 in the paper you cited, this is not the case.

It is not necessary to look at the four outliers to reach this conclusion. The amount of change is quite variable even among populations that experienced the same temperature difference.

In the most charitable interpretation I can think of, I suppose it is possible to make some assumptions and then say that their data is consistent with a completely deterministic model. However, you cannot say that it is evidence for such a model against natural selection, because natural selection can account for the same results quite well, and without the extra assumptions.

So I hold to my statement that, since this genetic change is tracking global warming it is therefore evidently a programmed response to climate (temperature) change.

Why else would Dr Huey find this data disturbing?

Are you sure you can't think of another reason why someone would be disturbed by the observation that climate change is causing animals to undergo dramatic genetic changes?