<i>Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails)</i>

I'm thinking about something said by Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu), he spoke of evolutionary concepts, of creatures changing and adapting to what is around them.

Though I don't have a specific quote.

"Hey guys, I really love natural selection!" - Jesus Christ - 30 AD

Do I win?

Can this be it?:

An early theory of evolution developed by muslim zoologist Al-Jahiz (c. 781 -r 868):

"Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid
being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms
to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming
into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their
successful characteristics to offspring."

From Kitab al-Hayawan (Book of Animals)

Otherwise, I'm guessing Augustine from this article:

"Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time". Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages...."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

Not what is sought - but a lovely quote anyway:

Observe constantly that all things take place by change, and accustom thyself to consider that the nature of the Universe loves nothing so much as to change the things which are, and to make new things like them.
Marcus Aurelius, 2nd century

From Wikipedia :)

Aristotle summarized his idea: "Wherever then all the parts came about just what they would have been if they had come to be for an end, such things survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way; whereas those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish…"[2]

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.2.ii.html

infidel_michael said: From Wikipedia :) Aristotle summarized his idea: "Wherever then all the parts came about just what they would have been if they had come to be for an end, such things survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way; whereas those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish…"[2] http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.2.ii.html

Is it Aristotle?
"of animals some resemble one another in all their parts, while others have parts wherein they differ. Sometimes the parts are identical in form, as, for instance, one mans nose or eye resembles another mans nose of eye, flesh flesh and bone bone and in like manner iwth a horse and with all other animals which we reckon to be of one and the same species; for as the whole is to the whole, so each to each are the parts severally."

infidel_michael said: From Wikipedia :) Aristotle summarized his idea: "Wherever then all the parts came about just what they would have been if they had come to be for an end, such things survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way; whereas those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish…"[2] http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.2.ii.html

"Chance one might say, turned out a vast number of individuals; a small proportion of these were organized in such a manner that the animals organs could satisfy their needs. A much greater number showed neither adaptation nor order; These last have all perished -- thus the species which we see today are but a small part of all those that a blind destiny has produced."
Pierre Louis Maupertuis, 1750

First a bad joke: The other day Dembski was trying to fix his faulty Explanatory Filter (which looks like a DeLorean), got inside, tinkered with a few wires and accidentally transported himself back to the early Precambrian. Looking at the evidence around him he said, "Rats, Darwin will be Right." Do I win? ;-)

Now for the seriousness. I probably don't need to read this book, but I will. "Why Intelligent Design Fails" is in my top 5, so this has to be a winner.

This the quote you're looking for as it's 19th century, but it's still rather an interesting quote.

Probably not the one you're looking for, but I have Maupertius, from 1751:

"Nature containst he basis of all these variations : but chance or art brings them out. It is thus that those whose industry is applied to satisfying the taste of the curious are, so to say, creators of new species. We see appearing races of dogs, pigeons, canaries, which did not at all exist in Nature before. These were to begin with only fortuitous individuals; art and the repeated generations have made species of them. The famous Lyonnes every year created some new species, and destroyed that which was no longer in fashion. He corrects the forms and varies the colours: he has invented the species of the harlequin, the mopse, etc." Systeme de la Natur, 1751

Al-Jahiz looks like the winner to me. His description is almost good enough as-is to be in a high school textbook, excepting Texas of course (for the dual reasons of being pro-evolution and from a Muslim).

Lucretius, perhaps?

And in the ages after monsters died,
Perforce there perished many a stock, unable
By propagation to forge a progeny.
For whatsoever creatures thou beholdest
Breathing the breath of life, the same have been
Even from their earliest age preserved alive
By cunning, or by valour, or at least
By speed of foot or wing. And many a stock
Remaineth yet, because of use to man . . .

But those beasts to whom
Nature has granted naught of these same things-
Beasts quite unfit by own free will to thrive
And vain for any service unto us
In thanks for which we should permit their kind
To feed and be in our protection safe-
Those, of a truth, were wont to be exposed,
Enshackled in the gruesome bonds of doom,
As prey and booty for the rest, until
Nature reduced that stock to utter death.

On The Nature of Things, Book V

Matt, I think you should take ALL the qualifying quotes and stick them on a page at the front of the next edition.

Cheers!

I'm guessing it's the Al Jahiz quote. And all of these quotes together only reinforce my feeling that evolution really isn't as alien or outlandish a concept as so many clueless ideologues make it out to be. I mean, anyone with simple common sense and a pair of eyes can see that creatures with certain characteristics or skills do better than others in a given environment (i.e., the faster runners outrun the predators, injured or birth-defective creatures don't live long); and those that do better are more likely to reproduce, and pass their better features on to their young, who then outperform others in their turn. And the same thing happens with humans: a plague kills some in a community, and those who survive it get to have kids, and their kids are less likely to be susceptible to the same disease. And of course, the strongest, smartest, and/or most energetic people get the greatest share of wealth, and get to have more kids who are more likely to have their more useful traits. Seriously, how dumb, rigid, unobservant, or mentally defective do you have to be not to see the obvious all around you? Why did we have to wait till the 19th century just to freak out en-masse about this idea, before accepting it in painful fits and starts?

All this political controversy should remind all of us that "traditional" Christianity was, and still is, a product of barbarian, backward post-Roman Europe, ignoring and rejecting the fruits of older, more educated cultures all around us.

PS: What does Harun Yahya have to say about Al-Jahiz? I'll bet he just ignores him, as creationists ignore St. Augustine.

I'm no good at finding quotes but I woulg guess it would come from Benoit de Maillet or Comte de Buffon.

http://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/empedocles/empalleng.htm

I will report a twofold truth. Now grows
The One from Many into being, now
Even from the One disparting come the Many.
Twofold the birth, twofold the death of things:
For, now, the meeting of the Many brings
To birth and death; and, now, whatever grew
From out their sundering, flies apart and dies.
And this long interchange shall never end.
Whiles into One do all through Love unite;
Whiles too the same are rent through hate of Strife.
And in so far as is the One still wont
To grow from Many, and the Many, again,
Spring from primeval scattering of the One,
So far have they a birth and mortal date;
And in so far as the long interchange
Ends not, so far forever established gods

And how from Earth streams forth the Green and Firm.
And all through Wrath are split to shapes diverse;
And each through Love draws near and yearns for each.
For from these elements hath budded all
That was or is or evermore shall be—
All trees, and men and women, beasts and birds,
And fishes nourished in deep waters, aye,
The long-lived gods, in honors excellent.
For these are all, and, as they course along
Through one another, they take new faces all,
By varied mingling and enduring change.

Empedocles, ca. 490–430 BC)

and as referred to before by others:

In the Book of Animals, abu Uthman al-Jahith (781-869), an intellectual of East African descent, was the first to speculate on the influence of the environment on species. He wrote: “Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring.”

ttp://dad2059.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/did-islamic-scientists-discover-evolutionary-theory-before-darwin/

fasteddie said: Al-Jahiz looks like the winner to me. His description is almost good enough as-is to be in a high school textbook, excepting Texas of course (for the dual reasons of being pro-evolution and from a Muslim).

Raging Bee said:

"And all of these quotes together only reinforce my feeling that evolution really isn’t as alien or outlandish a concept as so many clueless ideologues make it out to be."

Indeed. This is why I find this site is so informative. Topics discussed here often lead in unexpected and interesting directions.

Yeah the al-Jahiz quote could definitely be read as Lamarckian, a science writer in the Independent made this point earlier this year after physicist Jim Al-Khalili's BBC tv show on science and islam.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-connor-you-think-others-got-there-before-darwin-1242497.html
Steve Connor: Al-Khalili says that this qualifies as a theory of natural selection, but any scholar of Darwinism will point out that this could just as easily describe another, discredited evolutionary mechanism, known as Lamarckism. Sorry Jim, from what little we know of al-Jahith and his ideas on evolution, he can't hold a candle to Darwin and Wallace.

Patrick Metthew:

As nature, in all her modifications of life, has a power of increase far beyond what is needed to supply the place of what falls by Time's decay, those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, swiftness, hardihood, or cunning, fall prematurely without reproducing -- either a prey to their natural devourers, or sinking under disease, generally induced by want of nourishment, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind, who are pressing on the means of subsistence.

I don't know the quote, but I'm ordering the book. :-)

Thanks for this book, Matt. It is definitely on my reading list.

And I would also applaud your choice of coauthor. Having someone who is intimately familiar with the issues of high school biology teaching is a definite plus.

Jerry Coyne said: Patrick Metthew: As nature, in all her modifications of life, has a power of increase far beyond what is needed to supply the place of what falls by Time's decay, those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, swiftness, hardihood, or cunning, fall prematurely without reproducing -- either a prey to their natural devourers, or sinking under disease, generally induced by want of nourishment, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind, who are pressing on the means of subsistence.

knirirr and jerry Coyne:
from my reading of Patrick Matthew, he was thinking only of stabilizing selection. I don't think he ever thought of it as a means of producing new species.

"Men have nipples!"
--Adam or somebody

For many are called, but few [are] chosen.

There is this quote from a letter of Epicurus (341-270BCE):

Again, we must suppose that nature too has been taught and forced to learn many various lessons by the facts themselves, that reason subsequently develops what it has thus received and makes fresh discoveries, among some tribes more quickly, among others more slowly, the progress thus made being at certain times and seasons greater, at others less.
Epicurus: Letter to Herodotus

A couple of people cite this passage as a verbatim quote from Al-Jahiz's Kitab al-Hayawan:
"Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring."

But in fact it is in fact nothing of the sort. It is an attempt at a summary of Al-Jahiz's ideas prepared by Australian Muslim geologist Gary Dargan for this Australian radio programme:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/encounter/stories/2006/1793770.htm

Gary gleaned the information from this article from Mehmet Bayradkar: http://www.salam.co.uk/knowledge/al-jahiz.php

I have discussed this with Gary and he admits he has not himself read Kitab al-Hayawan either in the original Arabic or in translation.

One thing I have learnt in trawling though all these assertions of who said what when about Darwin or evolution is that you have to track back to the original source, which in this case, means showing us the Arabic with a translation. In fact even that is not good enough, as one could be just quote-mining. What we need is a dual text--a facsimile of the whole of Kitab al-Hayawn with a good modern translation into English! Otherwise we should all shut up about Al-Jahiz :-)

See this recent posting for a similar problem with Pasteur's supposed support for evolution:
http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2009/04/darwin-pasteur-their-sleep-among.html

And if this comment seems grumpy, read this:
http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2009/01/i-am-turning-into-grumpy-old-man.html

Thanks, Todd. And again, your quote only reinforces the idea that evolution can be discerned merely by the application of plain common sense. Why did Epicurus "suppose" that bit about nature learning lessons? Most likely because he observed that other people (and surely himself) are "taught and forced to learn many various lessons by the facts themselves;" so it just didn't seem a big stretch to figure other creatures -- especially the smartest and most useful and dangerous ones (domestic animals and predators) -- just did the same. This ain't rocket science, folks. Hell, it ain't even biology!

The earliest "evolutionary" thinkers were the Greeks, starting with Thales (600 BC), who held that "water is the source of all things, changing all the time", followed by Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Empedocles.

Cheers,
Sam

Lamarck said the following:

"The plan followed by nature in producing animals clearly comprises a predominant prime cause. This endows animal life with the power to make organization gradually more complex, and to bring increasing complexity and perfection not only to the total organization but also to each individual apparatus when it comes to be established by animal life. This progressive complication of organisms was in effect accomplished by the said principal cause in all existing animals. Occasionally a foreign, accidental, and therefore variable cause has interfered with the execution of the plan, without, however, destroying it. This has created gaps in the series, in the form either of terminal branches that depart from the series in several points and alter its simplicity, or of anomalies observable in specific apparatuses of various organisms."

(1815–22; “Natural History of Invertebrate Animals)

You can find the Zirkle article here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/984852

oops, i missed the 'hundreds of years stipulation'

Anaximander Born whereabouts of 610 BCE "(Man) therfore was like any other animal, namely fish, in the beginning."

Given a few minutes of Googling, couldn't I find a Bible verse that accurately (by theological "standards" - LOL) described evolution?

My guess (hope) would be that the quote will end up being something straight out of the Bible or some other source that the people of Jesusland admire. Something so intellectually interruptive it might even get an afflicted Jesus-deluded creationist's attention?

The prolific mutability of scriptural interpretations is well known. Seem to me that using nothing more than existing religious poetic license, something in the Big Book of Bogosity could be assuaged into a product that would pass as a preventative to the continuing religiousnutjob attacks on science....and doctors.

Enjoy.

Empedocles.

From wikipedia:

He also dealt with the first origin of plants and animals, and with the physiology of humans. As the elements entered into combinations, there appeared strange results - heads without necks, arms without shoulders.[33] Then as these fragmentary structures met, there were seen horned heads on human bodies, bodies of oxen with human heads, and figures of double sex.[34] But most of these products of natural forces disappeared as suddenly as they arose; only in those rare cases where the parts were found to be adapted to each other, did the complex structures last. Thus the organic universe sprang from spontaneous aggregations, which suited each other as if this had been intended. Soon various influences reduced the creatures of double sex to a male and a female, and the world was replenished with organic life. It is possible (although anachronistic) to see this theory as a crude anticipation of Darwin's theory of natural selection.

When do I get the book? :)

"Master, I marvel how fish live in the sea."
"Why, as men do a'land: the great ones eat up the little ones."
-- Shakespeare, Pericles Prince of Tyre

Given a few minutes of Googling, couldn’t I find a Bible verse that accurately (by theological “standards” - LOL) described evolution?

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man."

" Boys things are about to change around here" Noah Big flood B.C.

Dave Thomas said: The earliest mention of natural selection I can think of is the Bible, New Testament, specifically Matthew 22:14:

For many are called, but few [are] chosen.

God, 4005BCE:
"Why the hell am I going to all the trouble of reusing bits of code to make each kind when I could just make a single little bugger that can reproduce imperfectly and then let the environment select which reproduction should survive. I do that and I'll be home in time to watch Jay Leno."

GaryB, FCD said: God, 4005BCE: ".... I do that and I'll be home in time to watch Jay Leno."

Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
According to necessity;
For they give to each other justice and recompense
For their injustice
In conformity with the ordinance of Time

Anaximander

(c.610 BCE - 546 BCE)

Empedocles (~ 495 - 435 BCE)
The poem was written in the 5th century BCE, but the year is not certain.

On Nature

But come! now hear how twas the sundered Fire
Led into life the germs, erst whelmed in night,
Of men and women, the pitied and bewailed;
For tis a tale that sees and knows its mark.
First rose mere lumps of earth with rude impress,
That had their shares of Water and of Warm.
These then by Fire (in upward zeal to reach
Its kindred Fire in heaven) were shot aloft,
Albeit not yet had they revealed a form
Of lovely limbs, nor yet a human cry,
Nor secret member, common to the male.

There budded many a head without a neck,
And arms were roaming, shoulderless and bare,
And eyes that wanted foreheads drifted by.

In isolation wandered every limb,
Hither and thither seeing union meet.

But now as God with God was mingled more,
These members fell together where they met,
And many a birth besides was then begot
In a long line of ever varied life.

Creatures of countless hands and trailing feet.

Many were born with twofold brow and breast,
Some with the face of man on bovine stock,
Some with man s form beneath a bovine head,
Mixed shapes of being with shadowed secret parts,
Sometimes like men, and sometimes woman-
growths.

Am I correct in noting that the quotations offered so far may correctly identify change over time in response to fitness, but none manages to land on the concept of speciation? I don't detect any statement of common origins.

Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring.

In praise of Empedocles, Darwin did mention Aristotle's paraphrasing of the argument as a predecessor to natural selection, with the caveat "We here see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth, but how little Aristotle fully comprehended the principle, is shown by his remarks on the formation of the teeth."

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F391&pageseq=18

Thanks very much for the discussion, particularly of Mark Pallen's very credible argument that the quotation by al Jahiz is specious. There seem to be very odd claims made in support of Muslim claims to priority. I look forward to seeing further research into this claim.

Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertiuis
Venus physique 1745
"Could one not say that, in the fortuitous combinations of the productions of nature, as there must be some characterized by a certain relation of fitness is present in all the species that are currently in existance. ....the species that we see today are but the smallest part of what blind destiny has produced."

Thanks for declaring me the winner.

I look forward to reading your book, and to anything you add about Islamic science, which made many contributions to the world's scientific knowledge. If I can, I'll recommend "An Illusion of Harmony" (Taner Edis), which discusses how post-Golden Age Islam has held back Islamic science.

Best wishes, Alex

What a gyp :p

Seriously, congrats Pigilito. Guess I'll just have to order my copy from amazon.

Matt Young,

What works is adaptation, not Neo-Darwinism.

What is observed in life is that species produce fit AND unfit offspring at each and every generation. Not all weak offspring die early. As well,not all weak offspring fail to reproduce. IOW, nature does not weed out the weak. Nature does not preserve only the fit.

Consequently, the competition we observe within a group maintains the health of the gene pool, but is not the driving factor in species survival. A loss of the weak genes is as detrimental to the species as the preservation of the strong genes.

Further, there is no culling going on. All animals need food. Therefore all animals group obligue their co-inhabitants by supplying a a portion of their offspring.

Rabbits produce several offspring in order to keep a couple of them.
Snakes produce hundreds of offspring in order to keep several. Roaches produce thousands in order to keep hundreds.

Again, each species will ALWAYS produce a portion of healthy AND unhealthy offspring. And they consistently produce relatively the same amount of offspring at every generation.

Natural selection is a figment of the imagination.

Well, even I can see the errors there. Most animals do not supply their young at all, and not many protect them. Steve P appears to think that "all animals" are mammals or birds, and not all mammals or birds at that. But worse, he thinks that competition for parental resources is not part of the selective aspect of the environment, nor is the parenting ability of individuals. This is not so. Parents who are successful nuturers have a selective advantage, in some (not all) environments. (In other environments the extra effort, over fewer but better nurtured offspring is not rewarded.) Offspring who successfully compete with their siblings are also advantaged.

He seems also to suffer from the misapprehension that species population is wildly labile. It is not. No matter how many offspring the species produces, selection culls not only the unhealthy, as he seems to think, but any and all who are disadvantaged by any characteristic, in comparison with their fellows, as defined by the environment, which can support only a given population. Since there are always more offspring than would replenish the population in any environment (and this effect would produce geometric increase if not constrained), only the well-adapted will survive. This observation is statistical, of course. But nevertheless it is remorseless. Over whole populations, it works, no matter what anomolies may occur at the individual level.

Mr P's assertions about offspring, survival, selection, population and advantage are incorrect, and his conclusion from them is therefore also in error. Natural selection is real, and it works.

Here's one, but I can't find any dates:

“The organism that can gain the new features faster are more variable. As a result, they gain advantages over other creatures and have a better chance of survival.”

"The bodies are changing as a result of the internal and external interactions."

- Nasir al-Din al-Tusi

How can anyone write in _successive sentences_ that "each species will always produce a portion of healthy and unhealthy offspring" and that "natural selection is a figment of the imagination"? It's like saying "I keep dropping rocks on my feet. Gravity is a myth".

Stephen wrote:

"It’s like saying “I keep dropping rocks on my feet. Gravity is a myth”.

Actually, it's more like saying that because I can throw a rock upward that gravity does not exist. Sure the rock will seem to defy gravity for a short time, but rest assured it is still subject to gravity, just in ways that are more subtle than those perceived by the casual observer. This guy does not seem to realize that selection can be modelled mathematically and that under the conditions the he himself describes it is quite effective and predictable. There are several things to remember:

1) Selection coefficients are almost never near 1.0 and selection still works just fine with low selection pressure, it just takes longer to alter the population significantly

2) Selection is amlost never the sole force operatiing on a population and when other factors operate ther can be complex interactions

3) Selection is not always the most important factor in determining the fate of a species or even an entire lineage

4) Selection has no foresight and does not always improve the population in ways that are advantageous in the long run, indeed it has many limitations

Many before Darwin realized the importance of selection, but many after Darwin have refined his basic idea as well.

Dave Luckett said: Well, even I can see the errors there. Most animals do not supply their young at all, and not many protect them. Steve P appears to think that "all animals" are mammals or birds, and not all mammals or birds at that. But worse, he thinks that competition for parental resources is not part of the selective aspect of the environment, nor is the parenting ability of individuals. This is not so. Parents who are successful nuturers have a selective advantage, in some (not all) environments. (In other environments the extra effort, over fewer but better nurtured offspring is not rewarded.) Offspring who successfully compete with their siblings are also advantaged.

He seems also to suffer from the misapprehension that species population is wildly labile. It is not. No matter how many offspring the species produces, selection culls not only the unhealthy, as he seems to think, but any and all who are disadvantaged by any characteristic, in comparison with their fellows, as defined by the environment, which can support only a given population. Since there are always more offspring than would replenish the population in any environment (and this effect would produce geometric increase if not constrained), only the well-adapted will survive. This observation is statistical, of course. But nevertheless it is remorseless. Over whole populations, it works, no matter what anomolies may occur at the individual level.

Mr P's assertions about offspring, survival, selection, population and advantage are incorrect, and his conclusion from them is therefore also in error. Natural selection is real, and it works.

DS said: Stephen wrote: "It’s like saying “I keep dropping rocks on my feet. Gravity is a myth”. Actually, it's more like saying that because I can throw a rock upward that gravity does not exist. Sure the rock will seem to defy gravity for a short time, but rest assured it is still subject to gravity, just in ways that are more subtle than those perceived by the casual observer. This guy does not seem to realize that selection can be modelled mathematically and that under the conditions the he himself describes it is quite effective and predictable. There are several things to remember: 1) Selection coefficients are almost never near 1.0 and selection still works just fine with low selection pressure, it just takes longer to alter the population significantly 2) Selection is amlost never the sole force operatiing on a population and when other factors operate ther can be complex interactions 3) Selection is not always the most important factor in determining the fate of a species or even an entire lineage 4) Selection has no foresight and does not always improve the population in ways that are advantageous in the long run, indeed it has many limitations Many before Darwin realized the importance of selection, but many after Darwin have refined his basic idea as well.

"Varieties come and go but each type of animal continues to exist"

No, no no! You obviously read your bible wrong; the word is "kind", not "type". If you're going to use pseudo-scientific gibberish, you should at least get your terminology straight.

Stephen Wells said: How can anyone write in _successive sentences_ that "each species will always produce a portion of healthy and unhealthy offspring" and that "natural selection is a figment of the imagination"? It's like saying "I keep dropping rocks on my feet. Gravity is a myth".

Alex said: "Varieties come and go but each type of animal continues to exist" No, no no! You obviously read your bible wrong; the word is "kind", not "type". If you're going to use pseudo-scientific gibberish, you should at least get your terminology straight.

Ah, so you're a "make-it-up-as-I-go-along" creationist. Just start with the "god dun it" premise, and then invent your own excuses. Cool. Sounds fun. Must be lonely at times, though.

Steve P. said: Natural selection is a vacuous concept because it says nothing. Nature does no selecting, preserving, eliminating, or building.

Rather, organisms express or suppress traits as required by environmental conditions. There is a limit to this expression and no group can survive any environmental pressure that exceeds the limit of its particular genepool expression landscape.

He seems also to suffer from the misapprehension that species population is wildly labile. It is not. No matter how many offspring the species produces, selection culls not only the unhealthy, as he seems to think, but any and all who are disadvantaged by any characteristic, in comparison with their fellows, as defined by the environment, which can support only a given population. Since there are always more offspring than would replenish the population in any environment (and this effect would produce geometric increase if not constrained), only the well-adapted will survive. This observation is statistical, of course. But nevertheless it is remorseless. Over whole populations, it works, no matter what anomolies may occur at the individual level.

As well, organisms do not 'try' to produce more offspring. They produce relatively the same amount of offspring at each generation. There are no steep peaks and valleys in reproduction. So there is no substance to the concept of reproductive success. Heck all groups of animals are reproductively successful. Observation confirms this. Varieties come and go but each type of animal continues to exist. There is no reproductive failure. It is overwhelmingly successful except in the rare case of mass extinction.

Steve P. said:

Stephen Wells said: How can anyone write in _successive sentences_ that "each species will always produce a portion of healthy and unhealthy offspring" and that "natural selection is a figment of the imagination"? It's like saying "I keep dropping rocks on my feet. Gravity is a myth".

Stephen, there is no correlation between reproduction and envirornmental factors. Organisms do not respond reproductively to environmental factors. They are oblivious to it. That is why each phenotype has a pre-determined rate of reproduction. It is synchronized so that the outcome of the algorithmic fluctuations is always balanced. There is no concept of competition in nature as a whole. Rather, it is fully cooperative. There are peaks and valleys but no new plateaus to reach. That is what observation shows us.

Steve P. said: Heck all groups of animals are reproductively successful. Observation confirms this.

Steve P. said: Natural selection is a vacuous concept because it says nothing.

Nature does no selecting, preserving, eliminating, or building. Rather, organisms express or suppress traits as required by environmental conditions.

There is a limit to this expression and no group can survive any environmental pressure that exceeds the limit of its particular genepool expression landscape.

Dave, observation tells us that healthy and unhealthy offspring all survive.

It is the group that is well-adapted not the individual. As long as the group maintains a healthy gene pool, the species will survive.

That requires a mixture of genes. Therefore, there is no tendency to 'better' quality genes at the expense of 'less' quality genes. There is only the requirement for the scrambling of the gene pool. In order to maintain the optimum gene pool, both fit and unfit offspring survive. There is no: 'the fit survive and the unfit perish'. It just doesn't happen in reality.

As well, organisms do not 'try' to produce more offspring.

They produce relatively the same amount of offspring at each generation.

There are no steep peaks and valleys in reproduction.

So there is no substance to the concept of reproductive success.

Heck all groups of animals are reproductively successful. Observation confirms this.

Varieties come and go but each type of animal continues to exist.

There is no reproductive failure. It is overwhelmingly successful except in the rare case of mass extinction.

By the way, adaptation is not evolution.

Evolution happened in the past and is now finished. Darwinian development from fortuitious mutations is disproved. For every step forward, there are many steps to the side, and several steps back. So Darwinism could never break an environmental risk threshold. Always a day late and a dollar short.

Steve wrote:

"DS, you miss the point. Adaptation is not Darwinism. Genomes do not build upon mutations to seek some advantage for survival. Genomes are already at their optimum configuration. They are simply maintaining what they have to the best of their ability. That’s the reason for the variety of methods organism have access to, to keep their gene pool healthy."

Of course genomes do not seek some advantage, it happens naturally through random mutations followed by selection. This is just the old selection is a tautology nonsense combined with the old genetic entropy routine. You do know that we have extensive knowledge of beneficial mutations that produce adaptations right? You seem not to have understood any part of my post.

Steve P. said: Genomes do not build upon mutations to seek some advantage for survival. Genomes are already at their optimum configuration.

We now look upon a maintenance program, nothing more.

there is no one off scenario. Rather it is a win-win negotiation. It could not be otherwise.

Wait, is he actually trying to say that inter-species competition never leads to one species displacing another??

I am very unclear as to how the development of the ability to eat nylon (a manmade substance) counts as "maintenance.

me too.

moreover, how about the ability to eat hairspray:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7015241142

well, at least you guys have a slightly more creative moron on your hands to play with.

So, is Steve P. a new troll, or an old one with a new alias? In any case, it's all too clear he won't be convinced by logic or facts (hey, he may be wrong, but at least he's sure!) Shouldn't we just ignore him?

Whilst reading this thread, it occurred to me that Steve Gould would have already had it covered, with his own translations from the original authors. A great man who died too soon 8^(.

Mal Adapted said: Whilst reading this thread, it occurred to me that Steve Gould would have already had it covered, with his own translations from the original authors. A great man who died too soon 8^(.

Ichthyic wrote:

"...well, at least you guys have a slightly more creative moron on your hands to play with."

Not really. Even most creationists admit that mutations occur, that selection occurs and that adaptatins occur, after all they are "microevolution" and well documented. Apparently this guy didn't get the memo. Also, "selection is a tautology" and "genetic entropy" are argument used only by those ignorant of almost all modern evolutionary theory. They rank right up there with the second law of thermodynamics and no transition fossil nonsense. I guess that will be next. Man what a surprise that will be.

DS said: Ichthyic wrote: "...well, at least you guys have a slightly more creative moron on your hands to play with." Not really. Even most creationists admit that mutations occur, that selection occurs and that adaptatins occur, after all they are "microevolution" and well documented. Apparently this guy didn't get the memo. Also, "selection is a tautology" and "genetic entropy" are argument used only by those ignorant of almost all modern evolutionary theory. They rank right up there with the second law of thermodynamics and no transition fossil nonsense. I guess that will be next. Man what a surprise that will be.

John Kwok said: And then of course there is the existence of "design" in nature, which a few - most notably Francisco J. Ayala and Ken Miller - have acknowledged does exist, but merely as an emergent property of natural processes like natural selection:

DS said: Ichthyic wrote: "...well, at least you guys have a slightly more creative moron on your hands to play with." Not really. Even most creationists admit that mutations occur, that selection occurs and that adaptatins occur, after all they are "microevolution" and well documented. Apparently this guy didn't get the memo. Also, "selection is a tautology" and "genetic entropy" are argument used only by those ignorant of almost all modern evolutionary theory. They rank right up there with the second law of thermodynamics and no transition fossil nonsense. I guess that will be next. Man what a surprise that will be.

RDK said: As much as I like Ken Miller, I don't like when people use the word "design" when describing the products of a completely naturalistic process. Design implies a designer, and unless you want to describe evolution via natural selection as a designer, then the term is misleading; especially to the lay public. The word just has too much baggage, especially considering how creationists rape terms with reckless abandon. It would be best if scientists just stuck to describing scientific concepts with scientific words. Even if we conceded that design in nature is present in some way, shape, or form (having nothing to do with a deity), the creos would bastard-twist it into supporting their viewpoint. Anyway, I have a hard time seeing anything produced by evolutionary processes as "designed"; organisms merely take advantage of the benefits of compiled beneficial mutations across many generations of offspring.

RDK said: Anyway, I have a hard time seeing anything produced by evolutionary processes as "designed"; organisms merely take advantage of the benefits of compiled beneficial mutations across many generations of offspring.

I was reading a work safety manual the other day and they talk about how the "design" of the human body can lead to problems if you don't lift things the right way, &c.

It may be prudent to use "structure and function" in place of "design" when talking about biological systems.

RDK said:

John Kwok said: And then of course there is the existence of "design" in nature, which a few - most notably Francisco J. Ayala and Ken Miller - have acknowledged does exist, but merely as an emergent property of natural processes like natural selection:

DS said: Ichthyic wrote: "...well, at least you guys have a slightly more creative moron on your hands to play with." Not really. Even most creationists admit that mutations occur, that selection occurs and that adaptatins occur, after all they are "microevolution" and well documented. Apparently this guy didn't get the memo. Also, "selection is a tautology" and "genetic entropy" are argument used only by those ignorant of almost all modern evolutionary theory. They rank right up there with the second law of thermodynamics and no transition fossil nonsense. I guess that will be next. Man what a surprise that will be.

As much as I like Ken Miller, I don't like when people use the word "design" when describing the products of a completely naturalistic process. Design implies a designer, and unless you want to describe evolution via natural selection as a designer, then the term is misleading; especially to the lay public. The word just has too much baggage, especially considering how creationists rape terms with reckless abandon. It would be best if scientists just stuck to describing scientific concepts with scientific words. Even if we conceded that design in nature is present in some way, shape, or form (having nothing to do with a deity), the creos would bastard-twist it into supporting their viewpoint. Anyway, I have a hard time seeing anything produced by evolutionary processes as "designed"; organisms merely take advantage of the benefits of compiled beneficial mutations across many generations of offspring.

Robin and RDK,

Both Ernst Mayr and Francisco J. Ayala - and I am sure others - have stressed that one of Darwin's most important contributions was to recognize that it was possible to have "Design without a Designer", by demonstrating that design was an emergent property created as a byproduct of a natural process, natural selection.

Regards,

John

John Kwok said: Robin and RDK, Both Ernst Mayr and Francisco J. Ayala - and I am sure others - have stressed that one of Darwin's most important contributions was to recognize that it was possible to have "Design without a Designer", by demonstrating that design was an emergent property created as a byproduct of a natural process, natural selection. Regards, John

Matt Young said: Oh dear oh dear oh dear! The quotation I was looking for was indeed that provided by Pigilito – the quotation by al Jahiz (ca. 781 – 868 or 869). I got it from an article by Alasdair Soussi in The Jerusalem Report, April 23, 2009, pp. 22-24:

Animals engage in a struggle for existence; for resources, to avoid being eaten and to breed. Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival, thus transforming into new species. Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring.

John Kwok said: Robin and RDK, Both Ernst Mayr and Francisco J. Ayala - and I am sure others - have stressed that one of Darwin's most important contributions was to recognize that it was possible to have "Design without a Designer", by demonstrating that design was an emergent property created as a byproduct of a natural process, natural selection. Regards, John

Robin said:

John Kwok said: Robin and RDK, Both Ernst Mayr and Francisco J. Ayala - and I am sure others - have stressed that one of Darwin's most important contributions was to recognize that it was possible to have "Design without a Designer", by demonstrating that design was an emergent property created as a byproduct of a natural process, natural selection. Regards, John

I should have added even if you mean that Darwin used the term to describe a given organism as a "design" (a noun), meaning a given build of some object, that's fine, but I submit that the noun implies that the verb (to design, designing, designed) was a part of the natural process and I just can't think of an example of a naturalistic process following a plan for an intended outcome (the design). That said, I'm not hard-nosed or stubborningly refusing to believe you on this. I just genuinely can't think of an example.

Aha, don't worry I fell for this one too and had a whole box in the first draft of the Rough Guide to Evolution on how wonderful it was that Al-Jahiz had written all that stuff... until I scratched beneath the surface. Perhaps I deserve a signed copy of your book for pointing this out! I'll send you one of mine in exchange!

There is much nonsense out there about Darwin and the Islamic tradition. ... It's mad that Islamists do this when it is clear that the world already obviously owes so much to the Islamic tradition of scholarship and science.

One of my heroes is al-Khwarizmi, who not only gave us algebra but algorithm.

'Ah! that only shows how much greater Lucretius really was,—for he divined a truth, which Darwin spent a life of labour in groping for.'

Dan said:

Steve P. said: Heck all groups of animals are reproductively successful. Observation confirms this.

On the contrary, observations of the Passenger Pigeon show that not all groups of animals are reproductively successful.

Matt, I'm not up to the level of the competition on the quote finding business here, not to mention that the contest is over. So, for my project, I'll make sure that my local bookstore gets the book in stock.

How about a general project of getting this into the hands of as many high school biology teachers as possible?

I'm not up to the level of the competition on the quote finding business here, not to mention that the contest is over.

So, for my project, I'll make sure that my local bookstore gets the book in stock.

Now, about the book: It is an impassioned argument in defense of science, mostly but not exclusively the theory of evolution, and against creationism in general, but in particular intelligent-design creationism.

Ray Martinez said: We commend the above book for not insulting intelligence and for admitting the obvious pro-Atheism stance of evolution.

Mr. Martinez is wholly mistaken: No evolutionary biologist says that evolution does not contradict creationism; it does. Furthermore, as I stated clearly in the main article, the book states equally clearly that science does not necessarily exclude religion, although it casts into doubt certain very specific religious beliefs.

Please do not respond; I will not allow this discussion to be hijacked by a troll who has nothing of substance to offer.

RDK said:

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man."

The typical human male has 24 ribs in his body (12 on each thoracic side). The typical chimpanzee gamete has 24 chromosomes (all other chimp cells are diploid, containing 48 chromosomes), while the human sperm has 23. We EVILutionists know that we share a common ancestor with chimps, and that our ancestors were quite possibly chimp-like creatures. If we take Adam's "rib" as a metaphor for our ancestor's chromosome, the Biblical account of creation can be loosely salvaged, given that we don't take a fundie hacksaw to it. At some point in the evolution of the ancestor species, through some unknown phenomenon, two chromosomes were fused, and thus, primitive man, a hominid, came about. This is represented by Eve. Obviously the above explanation is rather silly, but it also bolsters the point I made before: the Bible is just like a man. If you torture it enough, you can get it to say anything.

I would guess that Aristotle's Physics, Book II, Section 8, comes close.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/physics/book2.html

I would guess that Aristotle's Physics, Book II, Section 8, comes close.

From Lucretius:

"For certainly it was no design of the first-beginnings that led them to place themselves each in its own order...[atoms] struck with blows and carried along by their own weight from infinite time until the present, [atoms] have been accustomed to move and meet in all manner of ways, and to try all combinations, whatsoever they could produce by coming together, for this reason it comes to pass that...at length those come together which...become the beginnings of...earth...and the generation of living creatures."

And Lucretius on natural selection:

"Many were the portents also that the earth then tried to make...some without feet, others again bereft of hands; some found dumb also without a mouth, some blind without eyes...since nature banned their growth, and then could not attain the desired flower of age nor find food nor join by the ways of Venus. For we see that living beings need many things in conjunction, so that they may be able by procreation to forge out the chain of generations...And many species of animals must have perished at that time, unable by procreation to forge out the chain of posterity: for whatever you see feeding on the breath of life, either cunning or courage or at least quickness must have guarded and kept that kind from its earliest existence...But those to which nature gives no such qualities, so that they could neither by themselves at their own will...these certainly lay at the mercy of others...being all hampered by their own fateful chains, until nature brought that race to destruction."

Lucretius, 5th century, De Rerum Natura

Steve P. said: By the way, adaptation is not evolution. Evolution happened in the past and is now finished.

This is incorrect according to population dynamic studies. You are equivocating individual offspring pools with entire species populations here, but at the species group level, the data shows unequivacolly that unhealthy offspring die off at a significantly higher rate than healthy ones and that their influence in the gene pool decreases over time.

Dave Lovell said:

Steve P. said: By the way, adaptation is not evolution. Evolution happened in the past and is now finished.

Care to elablorate? What was the last creature to "evolve", and when did this happen?

Steve P. said: What is not expected or required is one animal's transformation into a completely different animal type

Steve P. said:

Dave Lovell said:

Steve P. said: By the way, adaptation is not evolution. Evolution happened in the past and is now finished.

Care to elablorate? What was the last creature to "evolve", and when did this happen?

I have absolutely no idea which animal was last to evolve. However, the fact that we seen no evidence of evolution in modern history shows evolution is finished. All we see is evidence of adaptation. Successive adaptation has never culminated in evolution. E.Coli is such an example. After several thousand generations, it has revealed a capability to catalyze citrate. Yet, it is still e.coli. ID predicts e.coli will never be anything but e.coli, even if it is able to reveal new catalytic capabilities. That would only show the size of its adaptive landscape. What would be needed is evidence that e.coli permanently changed its genome to be something other than bacteria. As I said to Robin, species are not islands. Their genomic plasticity in the face of changing environmental circumstances is expected. What is not expected or required is one animal's transformation into a completely different animal type, ie bacteria changing into amoebas. Really, there is no correlation between the adaptive capabilities of species and the variety of animal types.

Robin said:

Steve P. said:

Stephen Wells said: How can anyone write in _successive sentences_ that "each species will always produce a portion of healthy and unhealthy offspring" and that "natural selection is a figment of the imagination"? It's like saying "I keep dropping rocks on my feet. Gravity is a myth".

Stephen, there is no correlation between reproduction and envirornmental factors. Organisms do not respond reproductively to environmental factors. They are oblivious to it. That is why each phenotype has a pre-determined rate of reproduction. It is synchronized so that the outcome of the algorithmic fluctuations is always balanced. There is no concept of competition in nature as a whole. Rather, it is fully cooperative. There are peaks and valleys but no new plateaus to reach. That is what observation shows us.

Completely wrong. There are literally thousands of studies that demonstrate you are wrong here. Butterflies that have completely changed their breeding patterns when rain patterns shift. Snow Leopards whose gestation times have changed based upon changes in the length of winter days. Plants that have stopped producing pollen during seasons of extreme draught. Are you just spouting opinion or do you actually have something other than your "uncommon sense" that you are going on to make these (clearly erroneous) claims?

Steve P. said:

Dave Lovell said:

Steve P. said: By the way, adaptation is not evolution. Evolution happened in the past and is now finished.

Care to elablorate? What was the last creature to "evolve", and when did this happen?

I have absolutely no idea which animal was last to evolve. However, the fact that we seen no evidence of evolution in modern history shows evolution is finished. All we see is evidence of adaptation. Successive adaptation has never culminated in evolution. E.Coli is such an example. After several thousand generations, it has revealed a capability to catalyze citrate. Yet, it is still e.coli. ID predicts e.coli will never be anything but e.coli, even if it is able to reveal new catalytic capabilities. That would only show the size of its adaptive landscape. What would be needed is evidence that e.coli permanently changed its genome to be something other than bacteria. As I said to Robin, species are not islands. Their genomic plasticity in the face of changing environmental circumstances is expected. What is not expected or required is one animal's transformation into a completely different animal type, ie bacteria changing into amoebas. Really, there is no correlation between the adaptive capabilities of species and the variety of animal types.

Steve P. said: Why do insects produce thousands of offspring, snakes hundreds, rabbits several, and mammals on average a single or couple?

And why does this never change?

As well, at each generation there are always healthy and unhealty offspring.

This reality never changes in the face of changing environmental conditions. The 'rate'of change in the 'number' of generations may change but not the quantity or quality in a single generation. This observation confirms that animal types don't change their reproductive 'structure', only their reproductive 'behavior'.

Darwinian mechanisms would suggest that genomes are able to modify themselves in fundamental ways, at the extreme being able to transform their owm genomes into completely different animal types under envirornmental pressures.

If this is the case, reproductive structures could conceivably change in a Darwinian paradigm. Yet we don't see this in nature. We only see fixed (albeit flexible)reproductive structures in animal types.

Dave,

Thanks for your latest insightful post. Steve P. is demonstrating that he has no understanding of population growth, and related aspects of evolutionary ecology in his recent comments.

Like a typical creationist, he doesn't understand that one needs to be cognizant of a population's "history" - in other words, its phylogenetic history, or more plainly, geneaology, before making the correct - but fundamentally absurd - statement that one can't have amoeba evolving from bacteria (In a roundabout way, it did happen, but that was at least one billion - more likely, almost two billion - years ago, and not in the "hopeful monster" fashion that he seems to insinuate.). Steve P. is neglecting the evolutionary history of eukaryotes and prokaryotes, ignoring that, in its earliest phases, it was indeed quite complicated.

Appreciatively yours,

John

Dave Lovell said:

Steve P. said: What is not expected or required is one animal's transformation into a completely different animal type

A statement with which any "Darwinist" would readily agree. The observed transformation of any animal into a completely different animal type would completely destroy the Theory of Evolution.

Ray Martinez said:

Now, about the book: It is an impassioned argument in defense of science, mostly but not exclusively the theory of evolution, and against creationism in general, but in particular intelligent-design creationism.

But we are told by various segments in the evolutionary establishment that Darwinism or evolutionism has nothing to say against Creationism ("Creator-did-it"). Of course the telling shows how brazen a liar many evolutionists. Creationism-ID and evolutionism are enemy combatants. We commend the above book for not insulting intelligence and for admitting the obvious pro-Atheism stance of evolution.

Creationism with a capital "C" is more than a general "creator -did -it" statement.

I have absolutely no idea which animal was last to evolve. However, the fact that we seen no evidence of evolution in modern history shows evolution is finished. All we see is evidence of adaptation.

What do you think is happening right now with the flu virus? Does your definition of 'evolution' exclude changes like this and, if so, why?

Steve P. said: If only the healthy survive, why do animals continue to produce the same number of offspring in a generation? If successive generations optimized the gene pool by culling the unhealth[y], then at some point the gene pool would be pure; no need for improvement.

If biologists draw a distinction, it is to use 'adaptation' to mean a non-inheritable change in an organism, for example a person tanning on exposure to sunlight.

John Kwok said: Your absurd comments truly display your gross ignorance as to how natural selection works or any understanding of speciation, period. May I suggest you become familiar with the ongoing decades-long work by eminent British evolutionary ecologists Peter and B. Rosemary Grant on Darwin's finches? You may also find worth reading Jerry Coyne and H. Allen Orr's textbook on speciation or any of Ernst Mayr's writings on speciation:

Steve P. said:

Dave Lovell said:

Steve P. said: By the way, adaptation is not evolution. Evolution happened in the past and is now finished.

Care to elablorate? What was the last creature to "evolve", and when did this happen?

I have absolutely no idea which animal was last to evolve. However, the fact that we seen no evidence of evolution in modern history shows evolution is finished. All we see is evidence of adaptation. Successive adaptation has never culminated in evolution. E.Coli is such an example. After several thousand generations, it has revealed a capability to catalyze citrate. Yet, it is still e.coli. ID predicts e.coli will never be anything but e.coli, even if it is able to reveal new catalytic capabilities. That would only show the size of its adaptive landscape. What would be needed is evidence that e.coli permanently changed its genome to be something other than bacteria. As I said to Robin, species are not islands. Their genomic plasticity in the face of changing environmental circumstances is expected. What is not expected or required is one animal's transformation into a completely different animal type, ie bacteria changing into amoebas. Really, there is no correlation between the adaptive capabilities of species and the variety of animal types.

There is a limit as to what finches can do.

Adaptation is the correct description of what finches do, not evolution. The definition of evolution from the latin literally means an unfolding, a rolling out.

Evolution happened and stopped. Varieties/species come and go but the phenotype continues.

But the fossil records shows that all phenotypes are immutable.

Steve P. said: By the way, adaptation is not evolution. Evolution happened in the past and is now finished.

Then Steve P. said: Adaptation is the correct description of what finches do, not evolution. The definition of evolution from the latin literally means an unfolding, a rolling out. So evolution and adaptation are two different animals :).

Then Steve P. said: Successive adaptation has never culminated in evolution. E.Coli is such an example. After several thousand generations, it has revealed a capability to catalyze citrate. Yet, it is still e.coli. ID predicts e.coli will never be anything but e.coli, even if it is able to reveal new catalytic capabilities.

Then Steve P. said: Evolution happened and stopped. Varieties/species come and go but the phenotype continues. There is no connection between evolution and adaptation, as Darwinism supposes by asserting that 'macro-evolution' can be inferred from 'micro-evolution'. Species adapt, phenotypes don't.

Dave Lovell said: So where do you draw the lines between 'macro-evolution' and 'micro-evolution' and between "evolution" and "adaption"?

Steve P. said: Varieties/species come and go but the phenotype continues.... Species adapt, phenotypes don’t... But the fossil records shows that all phenotypes are immutable. Birds have been birds for eons and will continue to be so. Thats because phenotypes have finished their evolution...

Steve P. said:

This is incorrect according to population dynamic studies. You are equivocating individual offspring pools with entire species populations here, but at the species group level, the data shows unequivacolly that unhealthy offspring die off at a significantly higher rate than healthy ones and that their influence in the gene pool decreases over time.

Robin, If only the healthy survive, why do animals continue to produce the same number of offspring in a generation?

If successive generations optimized the gene pool by culling the unhealth, then at some point the gene pool would be pure; no need for improvement. Yet, at each and every generation, all animals produce both healthy and unhealthy offspring. They never show a tendency to 'new and improved' status after multiple generations. Even a species that has modified its traits in order to adapt to changing environmental conditions continue to produce both healthy and unhealthy offspring.

There may be a trigger to 'interrupt' reproduction. Yet, there is no trigger to modify the ratio of healthy and unhealthy offspring.

Do you see generations where there is a steady increase in healthy offspring until it reaches a plateau of 100% healthy offspring? It doesn't happen. There is a stable fluctuation in the ratio. You can never have any extreme.

TW, have you noticed that all animals except for Humans are both predator and prey? That each animal type depends on other animal types for survival? How can they be competitors? They complement each other, not compete with each other.

John, Finches don't evolve, they adapt. Their beaks get bigger and smaller as needed but they are always finches and they are always birds. There is a limit as to what finches can do. Adaptation is the correct description of what finches do, not evolution. The definition of evolution from the latin literally means an unfolding, a rolling out. So evolution and adaptation are two different animals :). Evolution happened and stopped. Varieties/species come and go but the phenotype continues. There is no connection between evolution and adaptation, as Darwinism supposes by asserting that 'macro-evolution' can be inferred from 'micro-evolution'. Species adapt, phenotypes don't. If they did, at some point birds would not be birds anymore, but change into something else. But the fossil records shows that all phenotypes are immutable. Birds have been birds for eons and will continue to be so. Thats because phenotypes have finished their evolution. Now birds maintain what they have through movement within their adaptive landscape.

Steve P. said:

Robin said:

Strong Steve P. said:

Stephen, there is no correlation between reproduction and envirornmental factors. Organisms do not respond reproductively to environmental factors. They are oblivious to it. That is why each phenotype has a pre-determined rate of reproduction. It is synchronized so that the outcome of the algorithmic fluctuations is always balanced. There is no concept of competition in nature as a whole. Rather, it is fully cooperative. There are peaks and valleys but no new plateaus to reach. That is what observation shows us.

Completely wrong. There are literally thousands of studies that demonstrate you are wrong here. Butterflies that have completely changed their breeding patterns when rain patterns shift. Snow Leopards whose gestation times have changed based upon changes in the length of winter days. Plants that have stopped producing pollen during seasons of extreme draught. Are you just spouting opinion or do you actually have something other than your "uncommon sense" that you are going on to make these (clearly erroneous) claims?

Why do insects produce thousands of offspring, snakes hundreds, rabbits several, and mammals on average a single or couple? And why does this never change? As well, at each generation there are always healthy and unhealty offspring.

This reality never changes in the face of changing environmental conditions. The 'rate'of change in the 'number' of generations may change but not the quantity or quality in a single generation. This observation confirms that animal types don't change their reproductive 'structure', only their reproductive 'behavior'.

Steve wrote:

"But the fossil records shows that all phenotypes are immutable. Birds have been birds for eons and will continue to be so."

Steve, perhaps you could tell us where you think that birds came from?

"I will send an autographed copy of the book Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails), by me and Paul K. Strode, to the first person who can correctly find a quotation that accurately describes evolution by natural selection and predates Darwin, Wallace, and even Erasmus Darwin by hundreds of years."

Steve is hermetically sealed. All the fossils that look like birds, were birds. Any fossil that doesn't look all bird -- by whatever capricious, sloppy, non-rigorous definition he uses -- isn't a bird. Ergo, birds did not evolve.

Matt and Richard,

Adaptation does not mean "small amount of evolution". It refers to a feature, or a trait, of an organism, which could be morphological, behavioral, and, if not mistaken, molecular too. A related term is aptation, which was derived by paleobiologists Stephen Jay Gould and Elisabeth Vrba back in the early 1980s.

Regardless, Steve P. is displaying consistently woeful ignorance of population genetics and speciation. If he wishes to make useful comments, then he should read some of the books I've suggested, such as two of Jerry Coyne's books; his recently published "Why Evolution is True" and his earlier, more technical, "Speciation (co-authored with Coyne's colleague, H. Allen Orr).

Regards,

John

Adaptation does not mean "small amount of evolution".

Matt Young said:

Adaptation does not mean "small amount of evolution".

That's not what I said. I said that adaptation is a process, but that an adaptation is used to mean an adaptive trait, in agreement with your comment. I think that Mr. P. uses it to mean a little bit of evolution, or microevolution. I have no idea where he got that misconception.

Matt Young said:

I would guess that Aristotle's Physics, Book II, Section 8, comes close.

The chapter is fairly long; can you give a specific citation?

I bought "Why Evolution Works (And Creationism Fails)", "Why Evolution Is True", and "Evolution The First Four Billion Years". I read Matt's book, and am halfway through the second. WEW(ACF)was a pretty good book, except one of the authors seemed to like repeating creationist nonsense. For example, in two places,there is the claim that Darwin could not imagine how the eye could evolve. On the next page from one of the claims, the author gives the exact steps that Darwin proposed, without crediting Darwin.
Why Evolution Is True, by Jerry A. Coyne, seems to be edited a bit better, although it contains some stupid mistakes, like claiming bats use RADAR.
The third book is pretty hefty, and will take a while to tackle.

Richard Simons said: knirirr and jerry Coyne: from my reading of Patrick Matthew, he was thinking only of stabilizing selection. I don't think he ever thought of it as a means of producing new species.

[The] progeny of the same parents, under great differences of circumstance, might, in several generations, even become distinct species, incapable of co-reproduction.