Evidence for Evolution

[Falco Knotwise]

Why the “mechanism” of natural selection cannot stand by itself:

“Lacking the teleology inherent in the instinct inherent in virtually all life to survive and propagate its kind, the presumed mechanism of evolution would not be present to begin with. In other words, the mechanism of evolution depends for its function and existence on something manifestly not mechanical but intentional, even if not consciously so.”

I'm not exactly sure what this quote is supposed to mean. But if it implies the need for intent, it is wrong. There are all sorts of selection processes that happen all the time in nature without there being life or any sort of intent. Nor is there any "intent" behind evolution either.

For example, look at a beach. Most sand is silicon dioxide crystals (quartz). But there is an optimum-sized quartz crystal that makes up beach sand. If they are too small they lack the gravitational force to stay in place and get washed away. So grains of sand that are too small are dissolved and carried away by the waves and tides. On the other hand, if they are too large, the constant washing action of the wind, wave, and tides, breaks them apart until they get down to the size of sand particles. So the natural processes that exist on every beach strongly select for sand particles of a very specific size, that is why every beautiful beach around the world is basically the same. And beach sand from Costa Rica looks very much the same as beach sand in Bali. You would never in a trillion years produce a beach simply through random chance of billions of the exact same size quartz crystals all accumulating in the same place. There must be some selective force at play to produce a beach.

We could come up with hundreds upon hundreds of examples in nature where there are selective forces are constantly at work to create complex structures that are not random.

Evolution is no different from the formation of a beach. It is a natural selective process that over time results in something that is more organized and complex than what we started with.

Yes, it is because it involves life, not just inanimate matter.

That’s why physicists don’t need the word “natural selection” to describe the formation of sand crystals. Physics can get along just fine without it. In physics, it would be meaningless and useless.

You’re trying to pretend that all of life is purely determined like inanimate matter. That’s basically determinism, which is another metaphysical assumption, and not necessarily a scientific one.

[Ken]

Why the “mechanism” of natural selection cannot stand by itself:

“Lacking the teleology inherent in the instinct inherent in virtually all life to survive and propagate its kind, the presumed mechanism of evolution would not be present to begin with. In other words, the mechanism of evolution depends for its function and existence on something manifestly not mechanical but intentional, even if not consciously so.”

I'm not exactly sure what this quote is supposed to mean. But if it implies the need for intent, it is wrong. There are all sorts of selection processes that happen all the time in nature without there being life or any sort of intent. Nor is there any "intent" behind evolution either.

For example, look at a beach. Most sand is silicon dioxide crystals (quartz). But there is an optimum-sized quartz crystal that makes up beach sand. If they are too small they lack the gravitational force to stay in place and get washed away. So grains of sand that are too small are dissolved and carried away by the waves and tides. On the other hand, if they are too large, the constant washing action of the wind, wave, and tides, breaks them apart until they get down to the size of sand particles. So the natural processes that exist on every beach strongly select for sand particles of a very specific size, that is why every beautiful beach around the world is basically the same. And beach sand from Costa Rica looks very much the same as beach sand in Bali. You would never in a trillion years produce a beach simply through random chance of billions of the exact same size quartz crystals all accumulating in the same place. There must be some selective force at play to produce a beach.

We could come up with hundreds upon hundreds of examples in nature where there are selective forces are constantly at work to create complex structures that are not random.

Evolution is no different from the formation of a beach. It is a natural selective process that over time results in something that is more organized and complex than what we started with.

Yes, it is because it involves life, not just inanimate matter.

That’s why physicists don’t need the word “natural selection” to describe the formation of sand crystals. Physics can get along just fine without it. In physics, it would be meaningless and useless.

You’re trying to pretend that all of life is purely determined like inanimate matter. That’s basically determinism, which is another metaphysical assumption, and not necessarily a scientific one.

I'm not trying to pretend anything. I'm simply making two points.

1. Selective forces are everywhere in nature and not random. They are the opposite of random. Biology is no different. So to ask (as some do here) how complex life can develop from random chance is to ask the wrong question. Because every selective force in nature (physical, chemical, or biological) is the opposite of random.

2. There is no intent necessary in the theory of evolution. In other words, intent is not necessary for selective forces to exist and to impart change. There *MIGHT* be intent in the organization of the universe and all the forces that see around us, physical, chemical, and biological. That gets us beyond science into the metaphysical. But we don't need to posit the existence of a designer, or some intent operating in the background to understand any natural force. Whether it is physical forces like gravity, chemical forces, or biological forces like evolution. That doesn't mean a designer or higher force such as God isn't behind all of it. Many people believe so and it might be true. I'm simply saying that evolution and every other force in the universe doesn't REQUIRE the existence of a higher force. But to believe that there isn't one (atheism) is just as much of a leap of faith as to believe their is one (believe in God as a creator). Neither believe is scientific because neither belief is asking questions of science.

For example, does God make the sun rise and sun set? Ancient Hebrews and other ancient peoples thought so. But we now know the sun isn't moving (relative to the earth). Rather it is the earth itself that is rotating on its axis and creating the illusion that it is the sun rising and falling. And we also know that it is simply momentum that keeps the earth turning on its axis. It can all be explained through physical laws. No supernatural force is needed. Does that mean God doesn't exist and didn't have a hand in creating the universe as we observe it? Absolutely not. That is a different question entirely. But our understanding of Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation, which explain the rising and setting of the sun, do not require any supernatural force to be understood.

[Josh]

Ken,

You seem to misunderstand the entire theory of macroevolution, which is that random events did indeed lead to creating the universe and all life in it.

[Ken]

Ken,

You seem to misunderstand the entire theory of macroevolution, which is that random events did indeed lead to creating the universe and all life in it.

No. I understand perfectly well what macroevolution is. At least as it is commonly defined.

I suspect you are actually referring to is the theory of abiogenesis which is something completely different. That is the idea that life emerged from non-living molecules through natural processes. Any biologist would tell you that abiogenesis is highly speculative because we are talking about events that were thought to occur 3.5 billion or more years ago. That is so far into the distant past that there are barely any rock formations anywhere on earth that are that old. Let alone any fossil remnants from that time. So it is all just pure theory at this point.

And even the theory of abiogenesis doesn't suggest that it was the result of random events. But rather, there were selective forces and conditions at play. Which is the opposite of random.

Are there scientists who are trying to show how abiogenesis might have occurred naturally under the conditions of early earth? Sure. There are some famous experiments to that effect. But it is all just speculation and everyone understands that. And it doesn't affect the theory of evolution by natural selection one way or the other.

It is rather like the big bang. Do we need to know how the universe was created through the big bang and when it happened in order to observe natural laws and patterns in our universe such as gravity and the laws of motion? No, of course not.

[Falco Knotwise]

I'm not trying to pretend anything. I'm simply making two points.

1. Selective forces are everywhere in nature and not random. They are the opposite of random. Biology is no different. So to ask (as some do here) how complex life can develop from random chance is to ask the wrong question. Because every selective force in nature (physical, chemical, or biological) is the opposite of random.

2. There is no intent necessary in the theory of evolution. In other words, intent is not necessary for selective forces to exist and to impart change. There *MIGHT* be intent in the organization of the universe and all the forces that see around us, physical, chemical, and biological. That gets us beyond science into the metaphysical. But we don't need to posit the existence of a designer, or some intent operating in the background to understand any natural force. Whether it is physical forces like gravity, chemical forces, or biological forces like evolution. That doesn't mean a designer or higher force such as God isn't behind all of it. Many people believe so and it might be true. I'm simply saying that evolution and every other force in the universe doesn't REQUIRE the existence of a higher force. But to believe that there isn't one (atheism) is just as much of a leap of faith as to believe their is one (believe in God as a creator). Neither believe is scientific because neither belief is asking questions of science.

For example, does God make the sun rise and sun set? Ancient Hebrews and other ancient peoples thought so. But we now know the sun isn't moving (relative to the earth). Rather it is the earth itself that is rotating on its axis and creating the illusion that it is the sun rising and falling. And we also know that it is simply momentum that keeps the earth turning on its axis. It can all be explained through physical laws. No supernatural force is needed. Does that mean God doesn't exist and didn't have a hand in creating the universe as we observe it? Absolutely not. That is a different question entirely. But our understanding of Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation, which explain the rising and setting of the sun, do not require any supernatural force to be understood.

Natural selection does not explain the teleology inherent in all life forms to survive and to propagate its species in the first place. This introduces an independent factor into evolution not explained by natural selection alone.

The Giraffe’s neck is partly explained by its choice in accordance with its will to survive (to eat) so that in addition to a mindless purposeless process called natural selection the mindful purpose of the Giraffe enters into the equation.

That mindful choice (even if not conscious, just an instinct, in the Giraffe) is not explained by natural selection, just taken for granted.

“Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist; he cannot live without her but he’s unwilling to be seen with her in public.” —J.B.S. Haldane

[Ken]

Natural selection does not explain the teleology inherent in all life forms to survive and to propagate its species in the first place. This introduces an independent factor into evolution not explained by natural selection alone.

The Giraffe’s neck is partly explained by its choice in accordance with its will to survive (to eat) so that in addition to a mindless purposeless process called natural selection the mindful purpose of the Giraffe enters the equation.

That mindful choice (even if not conscious, just an instinct, in the Giraffe) is not explained by natural selection, just taken for granted.

“Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist; he cannot live without her but he’s unwilling to be seen with her in public.” —J.B.S. Haldane

No, that's not true. Evolution perfectly well explains what you are calling the "will to survive"

In any large population of giraffes (or any other species) there is going to be a vast amount of genetic variation.

Some of that variation will be in height and if there is a competitive advantage to being tall in the ecosystem where giraffes habit, one would expect that natural selection will favor taller giraffes.

Likewise, some of that natural variation will be in the form of various survival instincts. In a semi-arid environment, giraffes who can smell water from a long ways away will have a competitive advantage to those who can't. Giraffes who are more cautious around predators will have a competitive advantage over those that don't. Giraffes who have a stronger "fight or flight" instinct will have a competitive advantage over those who do not. Giraffes who have a strong feeding instinct will have a competitive advantage over those who do not. Giraffes who have a strong mating instinct will have a competitive advantage over those that do not. Etc. etc. etc.

So just as natural selection explains why giraffes have long necks. It also explains what you are calling "the will to survive." Which according to evolution is nothing more than natural selection in favor of giraffes that have stronger survival instincts. Giraffes are thought to have evolved from a smaller ancestral gazelle species over the period of about 8 million years. That is a very long time for all of those selective forces to influence the composition of the species.

[Falco Knotwise]

Natural selection does not explain the teleology inherent in all life forms to survive and to propagate its species in the first place. This introduces an independent factor into evolution not explained by natural selection alone.

The Giraffe’s neck is partly explained by its choice in accordance with its will to survive (to eat) so that in addition to a mindless purposeless process called natural selection the mindful purpose of the Giraffe enters the equation.

That mindful choice (even if not conscious, just an instinct, in the Giraffe) is not explained by natural selection, just taken for granted.

“Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist; he cannot live without her but he’s unwilling to be seen with her in public.” —J.B.S. Haldane

Some of that variation will be in height and if there is a competitive advantage to being tall in the ecosystem where giraffes habit, one would expect that natural selection will favor taller giraffes.

You’re missing the point. There wouldn’t be a variation in the Giraffe’s height without a choice by the Giraffe to stretch its neck to reach the leaves. Or at least the choice to do so affected that genetic variation.

Or at least, I’m told this much is now admitted by scientists.

Perhaps it is related to something called Epigenetics.

In biology, epigenetics is the study of heritable traits, or a stable change of cell function, that cannot be explained by changes in DNA sequence.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

Lamarck was originally ridiculed for suggesting how the evolution of the giraffe’s neck was partly explained by the behavior and inner choice of the giraffe, but it seems to me science is coming round to support it now.

[Ken]

Natural selection does not explain the teleology inherent in all life forms to survive and to propagate its species in the first place. This introduces an independent factor into evolution not explained by natural selection alone.

The Giraffe’s neck is partly explained by its choice in accordance with its will to survive (to eat) so that in addition to a mindless purposeless process called natural selection the mindful purpose of the Giraffe enters the equation.

That mindful choice (even if not conscious, just an instinct, in the Giraffe) is not explained by natural selection, just taken for granted.

Some of that variation will be in height and if there is a competitive advantage to being tall in the ecosystem where giraffes habit, one would expect that natural selection will favor taller giraffes.

You’re missing the point. There wouldn’t be a variation in the Giraffe’s height without a choice by the Giraffe to stretch its neck to reach the leaves. Or at least the choice to do so affected that genetic variation.

Or at least, I’m told this much is now admitted by scientists.

That is wrong. The whole idea that giraffes developed long necks by stretching and willing their longer necks was proposed by Jean Baptiste Lemarke in 1801, as the "Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characters". This was six decades before Darwin published the Origin of Species. It was one of many early theories of evolution that were proposed before Darwin developed the theory of evolution by natural selection.

We now know this is wrong and that variations in the gene pool are the result of things like mutations and genetic drift and not acquired after birth through behavior or effort. Put another way, you can strive all you want during your life to be taller, faster, smarter, etc. And you might develop some of those traits through effort. But none of that effort will recode itself back into your DNA. That simply isn't how inheritance works. The genes you pass on to your offspring are the ones you were born with. You can't change your DNA through "will" or effort.

You can read all about Lemarckism here: https://www.britannica.com/science/Lama ... Lamarckism

[Falco Knotwise]

As I said, some are making an argument from Epigenetics that Lamarck is being at least partially vindicated. (Though I realize others are opposed to it.)

Behavior shapes the epigenome which modulates the genome which determines form and potentialities of behavior for that organism. Notice this series ends where it begins. This connection reveals the active role that an organism contributes in shaping the evolution of its own species, which evolution can no longer be ascribed merely to “the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered.”

Darwin’s theory of sexual selection, if it had been adequately incorporated into the general Darwinian paradigm, would have similarly begun to overturn it for the same reason. In brief, after having presumed to have explained the origin of species through natural “selection,” which was held to function merely on the basis of reproductive fitness and without any appeal to purpose or intention on behalf of organisms, Darwin realized that his theory of natural “selection” in fact entailed the very thing it was celebrated for having circumvented. To wit, organisms actually do select their mates. As a rule, it is often the females of a species that are the more selective and, ipso facto, intentionally participate in the evolution of their species. That is an example of bona fide selection and hence I did not place it in quotation marks.

I’ll leave my argument there for now as I’ll need time to consider this further and certainly can’t do so tonight.

[Ken]

As I said, some are making an argument from Epigenetics that Lamarck is being at least partially vindicated. (Though I realize others are opposed to it.)

Behavior shapes the epigenome which modulates the genome which determines form and potentialities of behavior for that organism. Notice this series ends where it begins. This connection reveals the active role that an organism contributes in shaping the evolution of its own species, which evolution can no longer be ascribed merely to “the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered.”

Darwin’s theory of sexual selection, if it had been adequately incorporated into the general Darwinian paradigm, would have similarly begun to overturn it for the same reason. In brief, after having presumed to have explained the origin of species through natural “selection,” which was held to function merely on the basis of reproductive fitness and without any appeal to purpose or intention on behalf of organisms, Darwin realized that his theory of natural “selection” in fact entailed the very thing it was celebrated for having circumvented. To wit, organisms actually do select their mates. As a rule, it is often the females of a species that are the more selective and, ipso facto, intentionally participate in the evolution of their species. That is an example bona fide selection and hence I did not place it in quotation marks.

I’ll leave my argument there for now as I’ll need time to consider this further and certainly can’t do this tonight.

Other than here, I don't spend any time out reading about these sorts of philosophical discussions. So I have no idea if Lamarck is being rehabilitated and if so, which aspect of his theories. He wrote his material long before we had any notion of modern genetics much less DNA. But I have seen no evidence whatsoever that organisms are able to will changes in their DNA through behavior. There are about 37 trillion cells in the human body and I would imagine the number is relatively similar for similar sized species. Rewriting your DNA through effort would mean re-writing the DNA in all 37 trillion of your cells. That is not even rational. Of course it is only your sperm and egg cells that get passed on and they are in the testes and ovaries, respectively. But for Lamarck's theories to be true, acquired traits would have to be passed back down into the DNA in your testes or ovaries. That would violate all principles of inheritance and how the genetic code works.

Women are born with all the eggs they will ever have. So no amount of will or effort is going to rewrite the genetic code of her eggs. They already existed when she was born. For men it is different. They produce new sperm during their entire fertile lives. But again, no evidence that any acquired traits get passed back down from the giraffes neck or other organs or body parts to the testes where they overwrite the existing DNA with new traits. There isn't to my knowledge even the slightest hypothetical notion of how that might work.

We can talk all we want about Darwin but honestly he did his work 200 years ago, before we had any notion of modern molecular genetics. He didn't set down some inviolate gospel. He just proposed a theory of evolutionary change that has been expanded and developed in the intervening 200 years by countless subsequent scientists. So rather than referring to Darwin it would be more useful to refer to modern research and understandings of sexual selection.

And yes, some species do select their mates (some don't). But the instincts that drive sexual selection are subject to evolution by natural selection as well. In other words, the females who select the fittest mates are more likely to pass off their genes to their offspring than females who select the weakest mates. And so the instincts that drive such selection will be passed on. As a consequence, the genes of the females who are most selective in terms of the fitness of the mate will most likely be passed on to the next generation.