Discontinuities in evolution data

[HydrogenBond]

Moderation note: the first 4 post of this thread were moved from 13837, because they begin a discussion about biological evolution, not about the original thread’s subject, the teaching of evolution in schools

 

Maybe the fundamental debate is whether life just appeared or whether it formed gradually over time in steps. The first uses a smaller time scale and the second uses a longer time scale. Based on other evidence the long time scale has more proof. In that respect, evolution, in broad terms, appears more consistent.

 

The next question is, can evolutionary theory answer any question about evolution or the principles of change in life, as it moves to the future?. We have a lot of data that shows what happened but there is discontinuity in this data. Depending on the time scale one uses to plot the data, the data looks different on the graph. If we use 1 million years time intervals it looks like a solid line. If we use a one year time interval it looks like there is a lot of data is missing. We will tend to plot the data with a time scale that looks consistent with the theory. This does not disprove evolution but can affect the assumptions we will use.

 

For example, if we plotted human history from 0AD, in 1000 year intervals it would look like we go from Rome, to Knights in shining armor, to space exploration. If we use 1 year intervals then the data looks different. Both theories will see long term progression, but the first looks like jumps forward where one day the toga is traded for armor and then a space suit. The second will show a sine wave of steps backwards and forwards with net forward progress.

 

The first plot would lose the dark ages between 0AD and 1000AD, and might assume selective advantage was only causing improvements. The northern barbarians had selective advantage over Rome and could breed better, but it led to social de-evolution, which can not be seen with the 1000 year interval data plot. This does not change the long term picture, but could make it harder for the model to make predictions.

 

What we have is a long term and short term model, with the long term more consistent with the most data. The long term model, although better, may not be perfect. There may be things missing. To allow for more room for improvement we need to make it possible for people to question the dogma without coming down with an iron fist. There are aspects that are hard to refute so we keep this foundation. But there are also soft spots.

[Galapagos]

Maybe the fundamental debate is whether life just appeared or whether it formed gradually over time in steps. The first uses a smaller time scale and the second uses a longer time scale. Based on other evidence the long time scale has more proof. In that respect, evolution, in broad terms, appears more consistent.

Evolution IS more consistent. The fact that organisms change over time and evolve is established as science fact. You can feel free to read more about this in any good college biology textbook.

The next question is, can evolutionary theory answer any question about evolution or the principles of change in life, as it moves to the future?

Evolutionary theory is constantly expanding and progressing, and more questions are answered every day. Surely we cannot understand everything there is to know in any one field of science, but evolutionary biology is in the same position as any other established science you may choose to name.

 

We have a lot of data that shows what happened but there is discontinuity in this data. Depending on the time scale one uses to plot the data, the data looks different on the graph. If we use 1 million years time intervals it looks like a solid line. If we use a one year time interval it looks like there is a lot of data is missing. We will tend to plot the data with a time scale that looks consistent with the theory. This does not disprove evolution but can affect the assumptions we will use.

And the discontinuity is predicted and perfectly in line with what we know. Most lineages dead end; most creatures on the planet die without having children; becoming an ancestor or a fossil are both very rare occurrences.

For example, if we plotted human history from 0AD, in 1000 year intervals it would look like we go from Rome, to Knights in shining armor, to space exploration. If we use 1 year intervals then the data looks different. Both theories will see long term progression, but the first looks like jumps forward where one day the toga is traded for armor and then a space suit. The second will show a sine wave of steps backwards and forwards with net forward progress.

The first plot would lose the dark ages between 0AD and 1000AD, and might assume selective advantage was only causing improvements. The northern barbarians had selective advantage over Rome and could breed better, but it led to social de-evolution, which can not be seen with the 1000 year interval data plot. This does not change the long term picture, but could make it harder for the model to make predictions.

What we have is a long term and short term model, with the long term more consistent with the most data. The long term model, although better, may not be perfect. There may be things missing. To allow for more room for improvement we need to make it possible for people to question the dogma without coming down with an iron fist. There are aspects that are hard to refute so we keep this foundation. But there are also soft spots.

That is cultural change, and cultural transmission occurs with such increased rates of transmission and mutation, of course it is different from biological evolution. One does not have to accept cultural endowment; we have no choice about whether or not we accept our genetic endowment. IT takes generations for biological evolution to occur; culture can rapidly change within one biological generation.

 

 

 

 

"The human understanding is no dry light, but receives infusion from the will and affections; which proceed sciences which may be called "sciences as one would." For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from superstition; the light of experience, from arrogance and pride; things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless in short are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections color and infect the understanding. "

- Sir Francis Bacon

[HydrogenBond]

That is cultural change, and cultural transmission occurs with such increased rates of transmission and mutation, of course it is different from biological evolution. One does not have to accept cultural endowment; we have no choice about whether or not we accept our genetic endowment. IT takes generations for biological evolution to occur; culture can rapidly change within one biological generation.

 

Here is some of my confusion. The samples we have from fossils, more than likely reflect species with the most population at that time. In other words, if a species has a lot of units it is more likely we will be able to find one of them as a fossil. If there were prototypes for transitional species, we may never find any of these, just using odds. What that means is if things were changing quickly, but not yet in steady state, we may not find any of these. The data won't show this.

 

Another consideration is selective advantage. I visualize evolution meaning progress, with selective advantage meaning better genes plus forward progress. But one can think of scenarios where selective advantage can go to the regressive genetics. This is hard to see for a given species, but is more obvious between species.

 

The dinosaurs came earlier on the tree of evolution and had fewer modern genetic features. But T-rex could still have selective advantage relative to an advanced ape (if it existed). Maybe this is a Darwin problem and not an evolutionary problem. Selective advantage works within one species but between species lower level genetics can dominate or have selective advantage even over higher level genetics in another species. Relative to numbers we may never see improvements constantly nipped in the bud by regressive selective advantage. T-rex could see a revolving menu of genetic improvements with each one tasting good.

 

What that means is even if a species was emerging with future genetics which would some day be part of modern animals, a passe species fossil with a lot of units could create the illusion that this was the higher life form. As a scenario, an animal develops the ability to communicate with complex sounds. This is the future. But in that present, this improvement gives away his position to a dumb dinosaur whose selective advantage is his big appetite. That improvement is now delayed and won't show up in fossil evidence until it can generate enough units so we can find one. It looks like it just appears by some mutation.

 

The easiest example of passe genes able to have selective advantage over more evolved genes are bacteria and virus. What was at top of the genetic food chain almost a billion years ago can have selective advantage over advanced modern genes. This may not be an evolutionary problem but a darwin problem.

[Moontanman]

Here is some of my confusion. The samples we have from fossils, more than likely reflect species with the most population at that time. In other words, if a species has a lot of units it is more likely we will be able to find one of them as a fossil. If there were prototypes for transitional species, we may never find any of these, just using odds. What that means is if things were changing quickly, but not yet in steady state, we may not find any of these. The data won't show this.

 

Another consideration is selective advantage. I visualize evolution meaning progress, with selective advantage meaning better genes plus forward progress. But one can think of scenarios where selective advantage can go to the regressive genetics. This is hard to see for a given species, but is more obvious between species.

 

Evolution does not mean progress, it means being adapted to the environment. animals today are no better or more advanced than animals of 100,000,000 years ago. In both time frames the animals were adapted to their environments. neither would be better then the other just better adapted to the conditions of the time.

 

The dinosaurs came earlier on the tree of evolution and had fewer modern genetic features. But T-rex could still have selective advantage relative to an advanced ape (if it existed). Maybe this is a Darwin problem and not an evolutionary problem. Selective advantage works within one species but between species lower level genetics can dominate or have selective advantage even over higher level genetics in another species. Relative to numbers we may never see improvements constantly nipped in the bud by regressive selective advantage. T-rex could see a revolving menu of genetic improvements with each one tasting good.

 

Not true, T-Rex was not more primitive than a Lion, T-Rex was different but supremely adapted to his own environment. There is no lover level genetics and higher level genetics. There is only being adapted to the environment

 

What that means is even if a species was emerging with future genetics which would some day be part of modern animals, a passe species fossil with a lot of units could create the illusion that this was the higher life form. As a scenario, an animal develops the ability to communicate with complex sounds. This is the future. But in that present, this improvement gives away his position to a dumb dinosaur whose selective advantage is his big appetite. That improvement is now delayed and won't show up in fossil evidence until it can generate enough units so we can find one. It looks like it just appears by some mutation.

 

Again there is no higher or lower life forms, just those that are better adapted to the current environment. If the brains cannot get around the appetite of the predator then the predator is the better adapted, no higher or lower.

 

The easiest example of passe genes able to have selective advantage over more evolved genes are bacteria and virus. What was at top of the genetic food chain almost a billion years ago can have selective advantage over advanced modern genes. This may not be an evolutionary problem but a darwin problem.

 

It's not a problem, the virus's and bacteria alive to day are very bit as evolved as the ones a billion years ago and complex life forms are no more advanced than virus's and bacteria. They have just taken a different path to adapt to the environment.

[HydrogenBond]

That was my confusion about evolution. I was working under the assumption of progress to the future. When you look at the family tree of life on earth you see more advanced life appearing with more ability to adapt in ever subtle ways. You also see more biological complexity in the same basic systems, such as the brain getting more and more advanced in terms of functionality. I saw sort of a bell curve moving upward and over to the right.

 

I got this definition from looking at the word evolve; The word evolve came from the 17th century and meant to go from a simpler to a more complex state. Evolution, in terms of a logical word derivation should mean the process of going from a simpler to a more complex state. The higher the complexity of a system the more complexity in the central core that is needed integrate the more complex state of the system. I was using literal language to mean DNA complexity into terms of the required genetic integration.

 

According to the definition that was provided, evolution is not concerned about advancement just short term adaptation? I was arguing in terms of inconsistencies in forward progress. But the definition of evolution includes regressions of forward genetic complexity as long as it gives advantage in the short term environment?

[Moontanman]

That was my confusion about evolution. I was working under the assumption of progress to the future. When you look at the family tree of life on earth you see more advanced life appearing with more ability to adapt in ever subtle ways. You also see more biological complexity in the same basic systems, such as the brain getting more and more advanced in terms of functionality. I saw sort of a bell curve moving upward and over to the right.

 

I got this definition from looking at the word evolve; The word evolve came from the 17th century and meant to go from a simpler to a more complex state. Evolution, in terms of a logical word derivation should mean the process of going from a simpler to a more complex state. The higher the complexity of a system the more complexity in the central core that is needed integrate the more complex state of the system. I was using literal language to mean DNA complexity into terms of the required genetic integration.

 

According to the definition that was provided, evolution is not concerned about advancement just short term adaptation? I was arguing in terms of inconsistencies in forward progress. But the definition of evolution includes regressions of forward genetic complexity as long as it gives advantage in the short term environment?

 

It's a common misconception that evolution of life is a progressiom of simple to complex, primitive to modern. Even the genomes of say humans are not bigger or more complex than other animals. some ferns have a huge genome, 200 or more chromosomes but humans have 46. You cannot say that dinosaurs were primitive and that mammals are advanced. Theropod Dinosaurs and birds share the same relationship as mammals and bats, would you say bats are more advanced than mammals? Or that Bats are more advanced than Birds? The usage of primitive and advanced or modern in relation to animals is not really accurate. It reflects an idea that the evolution of life is progressive. It's more accurate to say that some animals are better adapted to their environment than others.

[Galapagos]

That was my confusion about evolution. I was working under the assumption of progress to the future. When you look at the family tree of life on earth you see more advanced life appearing with more ability to adapt in ever subtle ways. You also see more biological complexity in the same basic systems, such as the brain getting more and more advanced in terms of functionality. I saw sort of a bell curve moving upward and over to the right.

 

I got this definition from looking at the word evolve; The word evolve came from the 17th century and meant to go from a simpler to a more complex state. Evolution, in terms of a logical word derivation should mean the process of going from a simpler to a more complex state. The higher the complexity of a system the more complexity in the central core that is needed integrate the more complex state of the system. I was using literal language to mean DNA complexity into terms of the required genetic integration.

 

According to the definition that was provided, evolution is not concerned about advancement just short term adaptation? I was arguing in terms of inconsistencies in forward progress. But the definition of evolution includes regressions of forward genetic complexity as long as it gives advantage in the short term environment?

 

Think about cave-dwelling creatures, such as fish, salamanders, spiders etc. who lose pigmentation or eyes.

'Regressive Evolution' In Cavefish: Natural Selection Or Genetic Drift

Eyes are an obvious adaptation(they are complexly designed and functioning) and persisted in fish populations because they conferred a benefit to ancestral forms. Move fish into a place where they no longer need eyes, and it becomes a needless expenditure for them to possess them. If mutations occur that reduce the cost and function of the eyes, the fish with poor eye sight suddenly become more fit. Fitness is relative.

WE can also imagine this in the case of a flying creature. A flying creature has wings; an obvious adaptation(complex functioning design maintained in population by selection). Suddenly, a predator comes in that picks off all of the flying organisms; suddenly flying no longer increases fitness.

Another interesting case of reversal in evolution is afforded by Proboscidea(elephants) regarding the evolution of their trunk. Ancestors of the elephants had downward pointing incisors which were probably used in digging for food, some of which formed almost perfect shovels. They also had a rough padded extension on the face, the early formation of the trunk. As these shovels wore down, the extension of the face was used to pull food that could otherwise not reach into the mouth. After a certain point(in evolutionary time), the facial extension could do most of the work, and the incisors became a hindrance and decreased fitness to those possessing, and there was rapid selection in some cases to remove it. At first selection was working for the formation of the trunk and use of the lower incisors, but once the trunk was fully functional for gathering food, selection worked against the lower incisors and the direction of evolution was reversed.

Here are some of the species in the clade, you can actually see the changes in skull shape:

Palaeomastodon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phiomia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gomphotherium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Deinotherium, the incisors actually moved backward to make way for the trunk:

Deinotherium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In some other lines, the jaw just shortened out of the way until we reached the form of modern elephants.

 

*the example in Proboscidea is covered well in "The Theory of Evolution" by J. M. Smith, and it is a very readable and interesting introduction to evolution.

[Thunderbird]

It's a common misconception that evolution of life is a progressiom of simple to complex, primitive to modern. Even the genomes of say humans are not bigger or more complex than other animals. some ferns have a huge genome, 200 or more chromosomes but humans have 46. You cannot say that dinosaurs were primitive and that mammals are advanced. Theropod Dinosaurs and birds share the same relationship as mammals and bats, would you say bats are more advanced than mammals? Or that Bats are more advanced than Birds? The usage of primitive and advanced or modern in relation to animals is not really accurate. It reflects an idea that the evolution of life is progressive. It's more accurate to say that some animals are better adapted to their environment than others.

 

The advancement of complexity shouldn't be limited to the number of genes but rather the complexity derived from the genes.

The complexity of life in the context of a web of environmental relationships have been steadily on the rise in earths history.

 

DNA is merely code for the structure of proteins for the building blocks of life, just as the alphabet 26 letters are the code of a language or notes to music or a palate of colors for a painting. We do not need to add more letters notes or colors to create more complexity in literature, art, and music and neither did evolution need more and more code to create more complexity in an ecosystem.