Macroevolution FAQ updated

The here gives me "404 not found".

Should be this.

Oops. Missed out on the identifier (http). Fixed now.

John: Thanks for taking the time to create this. A valuable resource.

However, if I may make a suggestion, it seems to me that there is a crying need to explicitly use Evo-Devo to address the claim, much beloved of creationists, that there is a qualitative difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

Sean Carroll's book pretty much asserts that Evo-Devo has largely falsified this argument. PZ at Pharyngula has been giving readers like me a regular thrill with nuggets from this field, but what would be really helpful would be a succint summary of the evidence that Carroll and others consider compelling. This would not only complement the excellent work done here and at TalkOrigins, it would effectively close one of the last remaining holes in the popular account of evolution.

Thanks again for working for all of us who care about science education...Scott

[T]hat is one of the reasons that we tried to further define evolution [in the Kansas standards]. We want to differentiate between the genetic capacity in each species genome that permits it to change with the environment as being different from changing to some other creature. In our science curriculum standards, we called this microevolution and macroevolution -- changes within kinds and changing from one kind to another.

The current consensus among paleontologists is that large populations are buffered against evolutionary change by natural selection or genetic drift.

Rein back on the Wonderland horses. Can all the king's horses, men, and neo-darwinists, get Humpty Darwin together? I think I may have asked most of these before. Science needs switched-on people but it doesn't need quasi-religious accoutrements.
1) You say it is indisputable fact that segmented worms, etc.,are in our ancestry. Does this categorical assertion exclude the possibility that this observed lineage could be explained without violating the laws of heredity - i.e., instead of insisting on blood ancestry, assume that these "ancestors" were part of a series of species transformations in which the individual species played no creative part and had no genetic links?
2) If the answer is Yes - ancestry means blood ancestry exclusive to other possibilities - name one real-life instance amongst higher life-forms in which one species has clearly changed, over time, to another. Do this without re-writing the terms so the terms give you the transformation. Define a species according to the common meaning - a reproductively isolated, self-contained unit as observed over prolonged time in the natural environment. If you have any doubts, go to a zoo and find what the man on the street understands by lion, tiger, etc., species.
3) Does the geologic record contain a continuum of distinct life-forms (which we might assume were species) or is it a continuum of development, without clear species? I.e., was there, in fact, a difference between EOHIPPUS and OROHIPPUS comparable, say, to the difference between lions and tigers, or are fossil species mere statistical labels, subdividing segments of a continuum?

4) Name all the great scientists you can, who didn't believe in some sort of intelligent design. Name one, who obviously would have said that previous life-forms were our blood ancestors, there are no clear-cut species, and life unfolded merely as a product of purely random events.
5) Why do some disciplines have difficulty disentangling themselves from controversy over science and religion? Should this be a problem to straight science? Why do you suppose Young Earth Creationism has seemingly gained credibility of late?

We look forward to the macro-answers.

Philip:

For the record, I'm a believer.

With respect to the first point you made, the strong conservation of core processes in different animal phyla as revealed through 'Evo-Devo' over the last 20 years is pretty much confirmed, and represents an independent and largely unexpected confirmation of common descent. Read Sean Carroll's "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" or Gerhart and Kirshner's "The Plausibility of Life" for an up-to-date treatment accessible to laypeople.

With respect to your second point, observed instances of speciation are rare but exist. Go to the PNAS archives (they are free) and type "Dozhansky" and you'll probably come across at least five articles on the case of D. paulistorum, a particularly well-knwon speciation event from the 1950's. Or go read the speciation FAQ at talkorigins.

Your third point muddies the issue as to whether reproductive isolation can lead to new species. (It can, and does!) Genes don't fossilize and the convention of assigning fossil specimens to this or that taxa was historically based on morphology alone. Molecular biology, however, is providing techniques for assessing the plausiblity of phylogenetic claims. The seemingly arbitrary aspects of taxonomic assignment in paleontology has always been much more constrained than it appears to laypeople; these days, it is highly constrained. No one in that field doubts that our models are incomplete, but that is not the same thing as saying we lack confidence in them.

Your fourth point is irrelevant. If we took a survey of all practicioners of Western medicine between 1600-1800, the vast majority would tell you that health was determined by the 'humors' of the body and that night air was bad for you, and that rotting food spontaneously generated maggots. Science doesn't care about your beliefs, or mine, or those of Einstein or Newton.

Finally, the main reason some scientific disciplines run afoul of religion is that they present data which contradicts the literal understanding of the Bible, including the fact of an old Earth and an even more ancient universe. Again, properly speaking, science doesn't care about belief. Christianity is afforded no privileges in that sphere and, to the degree that it makes claims which can be tested, is subject to the same skepticism. That includes YEC. Why do the numbers of YEC appear to be inching upward? My simple answer is that people who hold YEC as part of their beliefs also tend to have larger families, and they tend to indoctrinate their offspring rather than let them think for themselves.

Sincerely...Scott
(epigene13@hotmail.com)

Young Earth Creationism has not gained scientific credibility. It may be gaining popularity through the non-scientific means of marketing, political and legal manipulation, and fear-mongering from certain religious or metaphysical practitioners to effect thought control and unquestioned obediance in their followers who are led to believe that any contrary thoughts to the mandated dogma will lead to some form of eternal punishment regardless of the kind of life they or their children might lead. Scientific credibility comes from original research (experiments and observations) published in peer-reviewed journals over decades and centuries. Perhaps Philip, you secretly know where these peer-reviewed pieces of original research are published and you will share this information with an anxiously awaiting scientific community.

I got an error message so my apologies for any multiple posts.

I have a vague memory of a proposed arthropod-to-insect variation, which Google just refreshed by adding the words "Ultrabithorax protein". Wouldn't this type of small genetic change, resulting in a vastly different body plan, blur the line between micro and macro? Has there been more work along this line since the Nature story? I think that was a couple/three years ago.

fnxtr:

There sure has. It seems that, if you know where to look, you can find things that are like Goldschmidt's 'hopeful monsters' after all.
Type "threespine stickleback Millerton" into your web browser and you'll get a lot of info on a recent case in my area that's been studied by Stanford biologist David Kingsley. It's a striking case!....Scott

Approximately the worst arguments against macroevolution I've seen yet:
http://www.calvaryabq.org/services.asp?search=speaker&speaker=Dr.%20Paul%20Nelson

According to Nelson, development can't evolve because embryo stages aren't selected. Sea squirt tadpoles don't have gametes...so they couldn't evolve!

John,
Even apart from creationist misuse, I feel strongly that the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" should be dropped. They carry too much historical baggage from their use in old controversies and don't represent our current understanding of the subject. The danger with their continued use in works intended for students or laypeople is that they create a false impression that evolution occupies a linear gradient from micro- to macro-, and worse, that there is a neat boundary between them. After all, the failure of 18th and 19th century naturalists to find a clear distinction between "mere varieties" and "created kinds" was a significant part of Darwin's evidence for common ancestry. (As an aside, I was fascinated to learn that the search continues in the fringes of contemporary creationism, as the pseudo-science of "baraminology.")

Both essays (yours and Larry Moran's) do an excellent job of reviewing the history of the terms for those who wish to understand how the modern science has developed. However, in Larry's essay, "microevolution" could be replaced by the term "process" and macroevolution by "pattern" in most places where he uses them. The scientific controversy in the first half of the 20th century can be described more usefully as a debate over whether the processes of evolution--as they were understood by contemporary population geneticists--were sufficient to explain patterns of similarity and difference among living and fossil organisms. At the time, there were enormous gaps in that understanding, leaving much room for debate.

In the 30+ years since I took my first college courses in biology, knowledge of evolutionary processes and patterns has expanded tremendously. Advances in computing technology also have allowed development of sophisticated models of processes. It makes little sense to retain vague terminology when we can frame hypotheses in much more specific terms.

Bob Hagen: I tend to agree that the terms are contentious, but in my view the problem is not the terms themselves, but the notion of there being an objective *ranking* of taxonomic levels. I believe that, with Darwin, species are real (and so there can be a distinction between withn-species evolution and betwen-species evolution) but that the *rank* of species does not exist... how can that be?

The answer is that "species" is a term that applies when cladogenesis occurs (which we may or may not be able to identify), no matter what the "level of organisation" or whatever. In short, the macroevolutionary domain is when you can use homologies to draw a cladogram.

Now some may treat this as (what David Polly calls) Kladism, but for me it's the only way to discuss evolving entities that might be large or small, complex or simple, well defined or vague.

I think I may have asked most of these before.

The current consensus among paleontologists is that large populations are buffered against evolutionary change by natural selection or genetic drift.

In his COMPENDIUM OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY, John Wesley wrote, "there is a prodigious number of continued links between the most perfect man and the ape." (Quote in the READER'S DIGEST'S GREAT LIVES, from one of Wesley's books on natural history.) We know who Wesley was and when he lived. The religion of Wesley had nothing to do with apes or segmented worms and he enlisted neither for purposes of indoctrination. He was a factor in changing the world to a better place. But note, he didn't say that reproductive isolation turned apes into men, of its own inherent power. The power to transform is ultimately beyond nature. Darwinism, taken to its extremity, by definition contradicts the concept of divine transforming power, attributing to the creature that which is only the property of the Creator. That doesn't mean Darwinists can't go to Heaven; at least it means their science is substandard. Fix up the science, and we won't find ourselves talking about Heaven. You'll probably all get there ahead of me, anyway.

So, we have observed a lion change to a tiger, DNA transformation, reproductive isolation, the whole box and dice, have we? Which publication documents this? Where are these answers we keep being told but which we keep ignoring? Don't confuse the issue with hybridizing fish, Darwin's inadequately classified finches, or yet with species that were on the brink of transformation when Man came along. Just because organisms show signs of transformation, and just because species transformed during geologic history, doesn't mean you have seen and documented the great event. And the constant mutation of various microscopic organisms, whilst certainly pointing to something, does not give the full story of what happened at species transformation.

I think it was Huxley, amongst others, who said that we can only build upon observed facts.

Even Huxley, along with all the others, presumably would also have thought it a good idea to try to assimmilate the wisdom of those who have gone before. You have nothing to learn from the great biologists who went before? Their opinions count for nothing? It means nothing that they cautioned about jumping in where angels might hesitate? It is of no consequence that they tried to formulate a variety of thories to explain the observations of palaeontologists, some of which could have merit? You wish to stick with the concept of dogs giving birth to cats?

Could near-fanatical Neo-Darwinism be the best thing Young Earth Creationism has going for it?

What?

The power to transform is ultimately beyond nature. Darwinism, taken to its extremity, by definition contradicts the concept of divine transforming power, attributing to the creature that which is only the property of the Creator.

The power to transform is ultimately beyond nature.

The technical proof that species cannot transform solely by the ability of nature is straightforward. The personal proof of it is another sphere. If a million dollars could buy it and I had the money I'd give it to you on the spot: it's the field with hidden treasure that a man sells everthing to attain; the pearl of great value.

The dreary old technical proof may be approached as follows - there are other more rigid methods but try this. We know that the living cell is an information technology device which for current purposes we shall call a "computer". Incidentally, they are now looking at the possibilities of wireless computers, and they are working at trying to make a "quantum" computer. DNA, RNA, immune systems, reproduction, etc.,are information systems with some likenesses to wireless and quantum computational devices. But all we need is the understanding that sophisticated information technology, which we may call a computer, defines the species. The real difference between a lion and a tiger is not outward shape; it is first and foremost the question of whether a lion and a tiger together can produce fertile offspring. That question involves information - sex cells, DNA, immune system, and what have you.
It is not incorrect to think of species as different models of a computer. For current purposes we shall think in terms of computer models.
We now go to an information technologist. We ask him to build a computer that is to change into a new model in response to environmental change. The difference between models is to be comparable to the difference between species - a fundamental difference in terms of information.
What will the programmer tell you?
He will tell you that for him not to have to physically interfere with the computer to get it to change to a new model, he will have to do at least one of two things: Signal the computer with new information; or Pre-program it so that a trigger (such as a change in environment) will release latent information carried within the computer itself. At the same time, to get the computer to transform according to environmental requirements, he will build in an information system so sophisticated that the central control is permenantly modified according to the pattern of the information fed to it, at transition. This is no mean task. (Additional to all this, of course, he has to build in the reproductive self-containment, the bar that stops one species successfully breeding with another.) Whichever way he sets up the overall system, he is obliged to either program the machine with latent information at the outset, or signal new information to it at the point of transition; or, most likely, some combination of both.
So we have external input of information, if species were evolved in a rational, empirical manner. The question of the source of information is no different to the question of the source of matter.
People of all persuasions have been able to live amicably without arguing over the source of matter, and the same can be true of the source of information.

It seems that, if you know where to look, you can find things that are like Goldschmidt's 'hopeful monsters' after all. [example omitted]

— Scott Hatfield

Philip:

Wesley, huh? Let me set you straight, Philip: I'm *not* a Neo-Darwinist. I'm a Methodist---but I also understand that the modern version of Darwin's theory explains in a testable way more observations than any other model. *That's* why it's the reigning model in biology. If you want to see it revised or rejected, you will have to marshall more than objections: you will have to propose a testable model that does a better job of explaining those objections.

You're not doing that. You're trying, rather cleverly, to indemnify the model with meta-analysis. Unfortunately, your rhetoric (while well-written) eventually reveals you don't really understand the science you're criticizing. Dogs into cats? No evolutionary biologist claims this would happen in real-time; indeed, there are very good reasons from both genetics and evolution why that would *not* be a predicted outcome!

My advice: read Sean Carroll's book. It's up-to-the-minute, it's accessible to laypeople and (if you're really intellectually honest) you will see that it does offer an evolutionary account of how macroevolution occurs...Scott

The theory of louse origin that best explained the observed facts was spontaneous generation from dust. Then someone got a lense.

Scott:
Thanks! "Look MA, no feet!"

(ignores Heywood's tired troll)

fnxtr

The technical proof that species cannot transform solely by the ability of nature is straightforward.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

The personal proof of it is another sphere. If a million dollars could buy it and I had the money I'd give it to you on the spot: it's the field with hidden treasure that a man sells everthing to attain; the pearl of great value.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

The dreary old technical proof may be approached as follows - there are other more rigid methods but try this.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

We know that the living cell is an information technology device which for current purposes we shall call a "computer".

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Incidentally, they are now looking at the possibilities of wireless computers, and they are working at trying to make a "quantum" computer.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

DNA, RNA, immune systems, reproduction, etc.,are information systems with some likenesses to wireless and quantum computational devices.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

But all we need is the understanding that sophisticated information technology, which we may call a computer, defines the species.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

The real difference between a lion and a tiger is not outward shape; it is first and foremost the question of whether a lion and a tiger together can produce fertile offspring.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

That question involves information - sex cells, DNA, immune system, and what have you.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

It is not incorrect to think of species as different models of a computer. For current purposes we shall think in terms of computer models.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

We now go to an information technologist. We ask him to build a computer that is to change into a new model in response to environmental change.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

The difference between models is to be comparable to the difference between species - a fundamental difference in terms of information.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

What will the programmer tell you?

— Philip Bruce Heywood

He will tell you that for him not to have to physically interfere with the computer to get it to change to a new model, he will have to do at least one of two things: Signal the computer with new information; or Pre-program it so that a trigger (such as a change in environment) will release latent information carried within the computer itself.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

At the same time, to get the computer to transform according to environmental requirements, he will build in an information system so sophisticated that the central control is permanently modified according to the pattern of the information fed to it, at transition. This is no mean task.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

snip repetitious falsehoods So we have external input of information, if species were evolved in a rational, empirical manner. The question of the source of information is no different to the question of the source of matter.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

People of all persuasions have been able to live amicably without arguing over the source of matter, and the same can be true of the source of information.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Incidentally, they are now looking at the possibilities of wireless computers, and they are working at trying to make a "quantum" computer.

— Michael Suttkus,II

You misspelled "irrelevantly".

Actually, I remember reading about a DNA based computer a while back. I don't remember the details, but they used actual DNA molecules to solve a travelling salesman problem by running them through a selective process.

Actually, I remember reading about a DNA based computer a while back. I don't remember the details, but they used actual DNA molecules to solve a travelling salesman problem by running them through a selective process.

— Michael Suttkus, II

I've been away and it looks like too much proof got into the Suitcase.
Hey, Prof. Wilks, are ligons and tigons bigones when it comes to fertility? Hmm. Thought so. Wilks, by lack of response, tells me to look it up myself. No, its ligers and tigons. Or is it liters and biters? Hmm again. Litres, unit of volume. That's not it. Hey, something here on lager. Interesting article here on bootleg. Wonder if it was in a suitcas? It says here that the DNA of large cats communicates with the animal's foot by parcel post. Cheeters, though - now note this - cheeters go express post, so they are never last past the post. The things you learn! Oh, the things you learn!

...

...

...

No, I just can't find any way of reading PBH's latest post so it makes an ounce of sense. But since it did sorta ramble about liger/tigon fertility, I'll throw in a few more links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger#Fertility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigon#Fertility

Mr Heywood, your posts are incoherent. If you have a serious question to ask without insults or question begging, ask them. I will try to respond politely. Keep this up and I'll disemvowel you.

The topic was macroevolution and microevolution. As far as I understand, the former refers to variation within a species, which has been utilized as selective breeding since Adam. Macroevolution refers to the unrolling of the actual species, the mechanisms of which are just beginning to be glimpsed. The interested person could for instance refer to www.creationtheory.com , which attempts to summarize the current situation. Microevolution (as I understand it) is a factor in macroevolution, although not the driving or transforming factor. Microevolutionary response to environment was somehow "programmed in" to DNA at the point of transition. It did not of itself drive the transition. Technology is just beginning to glimpse the processes involved.

Perhaps you need to read the FAQ. Neither of your "definitions" match what I have seen in the scientific and ancillary literature. And the "programming in" is a myth. We have witnessed, repeatedly, mutations arising and later being taken into service, and in any case what differentiates microevolution from macroevolution is that whatever processes underlie the macro, they include but are not limited to those of mutation and selection.

Most models of speciation (there are at least five, all of which are thought to occur in at least some cases) hold that natural selection, while it is the mechanism of adaptation, is not the (usual) mechanism of speciation, nor is it the mechanism of larger scale changes in large groups of species.

Creationists embarrass themselves by picking and choosing what parts of science they wish to accept.

Evolution makes no claim towards creation. It never has nor implied so. Evolution merely recounts what has happened in earth's history.

The answers regarding God and the events that led to the big bang are locked inside a great cosmic vault. Most unfortunately, the combination to which are locked inside the vault. We'll never know those answers.

That leaves us with two choices. We can either join the fools that lean against the vault spinning myths and other tales or we can take the scientific approach and face facts as they lay. I find the revelations discovered by science to be more wondrous than any tale of myth or allegory.

Yes, creationists have invented their own misuses of the term "Macroevolution", which means nothing at all similar to what it means when scientists use it.

You do know that we have seen new species evolve, right? Hundreds of them. In fact, the problem for YEC now is that we haven't seen fast enough macroevolution, since they need extremely fast speciation to make the Ark myth an iota less idiotic.

And there's no rational way to defend the idea that organisms have built-in repertoire to adapt to changes. We've watched Hawaiian fruit flies develop new mouthparts to deal with introduced citrus fruit. Did they have these genes sitting around for the whole history of the world, waiting for someone to introduce oranges? We've watched bacteria evolve to deal with chemicals that aren't even found in nature. Were these adaptations built in from the beginning? For that matter, we can grow colonies from a single bacterium (one genetic stock) and watch them mutate to adapt to introduced environmental chemicals. There is no possible way this is a pre-existing genetic response. If it was, all of the bacteria would have survived instead of just a few with a lucky mutation.

There is no "creation theory". There is only abject denial of reality.

The definition of species, commonly understood, passed down through Linnaeus from antiquity, stated clearly in my first post on this page - the criterion of obseved reproductive isolation over prolonged time under natural conditions. The things that Man can do - and cloning is significant here - actually can give a pointer to what happened at those exceptional moments in geologic time when species were transformed one to another. The genetic manipulation man can carry out will go close to actually simulating species transition. Amongst lower forms it could be argued that Man has engineered species transition.
If you wish to make nature the test-tube to prove the point, you don't go and get a man to artificially engineer something approaching a transition, then say that this proves that nature causes transitions! Maybe you would be better off looking at what the man does to go close to causing the transition, and draw some conclusions therefrom, regarding what actually does happen at transition.
Crosses between lions and tigers, and indeed many such close species, if they did occur naturally, could not naturally succeed and arguably could not succeed over time, even with human intervention. For the purposes of a discussion about natural processes these crosses are infertile. Thinking people can go on and dissect all the other misinformation.
If you would like some questions to answer, you could try the ones put to you in the first post. Answer them in one swoop by explaining, blow-by-blow, what happens at speciation - and do it in the context of what is known, now, about the real unseen essence of a species.

The definition of species, commonly understood, passed down through Linnaeus from antiquity, stated clearly in my first post on this page - the criterion of obseved reproductive isolation over prolonged time under natural conditions.

— PBH

The things that Man can do - and cloning is significant here - actually can give a pointer to what happened at those exceptional moments in geologic time when species were transformed one to another.

— PBH

The genetic manipulation man can carry out will go close to actually simulating species transition.

— PBH

Amongst lower forms it could be argued that Man has engineered species transition.

— PBH

If you wish to make nature the test-tube to prove the point, you don't go and get a man to artificially engineer something approaching a transition, then say that this proves that nature causes transitions!

— PBH

Maybe you would be better off looking at what the man does to go close to causing the transition, and draw some conclusions therefrom, regarding what actually does happen at transition.

— PBH

Crosses between lions and tigers, and indeed many such close species, if they did occur naturally, could not naturally succeed and arguably could not succeed over time, even with human intervention.

— PBH

For the purposes of a discussion about natural processes these crosses are infertile. Thinking people can go on and dissect all the other misinformation.

— PBH

If you would like some questions to answer, you could try the ones put to you in the first post.

— PBH

Answer them in one swoop by explaining, blow-by-blow, what happens at speciation - and do it in the context of what is known, now, about the real unseen essence of a species.

— PBH

Wow. I'd never heard of Ring Species. What an interesting situation.

A very nice article. A couple of minor suggestions:

The mutation rate per zygote which you give as 0.1-1.5 is, I believe, taken from Crow's estimate for Drosophila in particular. Humans have a similar mutation rate per locus (as do most eukaryotes AFAIK) but their genome is much larger, so their mutation rates are higher, on the order of 100 new mutations per generation; Nachman & Crowell (Genetics, Sep. 2000) estimate 175.

When discussing Robertsonian translocation, you might make it explicit that (as mentioned on Pharyngula) humans with such a fusion can still interbreed with everybody else. You do say already that other species interbreed despite chromosome incompatibilities, but since Robertsonian translocation is precisely the change creationists are claiming would be impossible in human evolution, it deserves special attention.

Dudes, Heywood is an incoherent nutball. You're wasting your time on him.

The Ptolemnaic model of the solar system was simple by comparison.

Firstly, I congratulate Wilkins for not saying that Speciation is solved. Ptolemy and the myriad of others who made claims that advancing technology later modified, would say the same.

Nature has its tricks and surprises, but the common definition of 'species' is the most workable available. It has been around since Adam and the literature abounds in it. The man in the street understands the reproductive integrity of species. So did my palaeontology lecturer - the species question centres around reproductively discreet groupings (difficult to prove amongst fossils). The liger decoy actually proves the point. Don't try to tell a zoo-keeper that if he runs the lions with the tigers they will breed into non-lions or tigers. 'Species' is yet another word that has fallen victim to ideaology, in some quarters.

If as you say, "programming in" is a myth, then how does the species adapt for change in environment? Do you understand that a species is essentially a numerically-based blueprint, utilizing a database of 4 (as do prospective quantum computers), married with life? Do you understand that nature is not mythical, and if a species adapts to something, that adaptation must be "written" somewhere, in a way that ultimately can be mathematically expressed? What is microevolution, if it isn't the ability of some sort of an interactive information device to interact with the information feedback it is getting from its surroundings? And how could a species tranformation event - macroevolution - involve the specific changes called for by the environment, if information about the environment wasn't "on the records" somewhere inside the organism? Who is talking up special supernatural interventionary acts here, and who is talking up empirical, measurable processes? Which approach to species origin suggests myth?

From all the information Neo-Darwinism has ever provided your correspondent, here is a rough consensus of its existing model of speciation:
When Species A needed to change to B - as evidenced by various microevolutionary changes in response to environment - a portion or perhaps just one or two members of the population got so different, they were a new species. This is evidenced by the fact that if you set up a zoo with expert veterinary staff you may artificially get some animal species to show signs of successfully re-uniting. It is also evidenced by rampant mutation amongst some micro-organisms and virulent adaptation amongst some groups of organisms such as fruit-fly. New species will easily arise if we a) change our terminology so that these mutations are new species, and/or b) get a man to engineer dramatic changes in an organism. This proves that this is how it happened.

I think Ptolemy did better than that.

Nature has its tricks and surprises, but the common definition of 'species' is the most workable available. It has been around since Adam and the literature abounds in it. The man in the street understands the reproductive integrity of species. So did my palaeontology lecturer - the species question centres around reproductively discreet groupings (difficult to prove amongst fossils). The liger decoy actually proves the point. Don't try to tell a zoo-keeper that if he runs the lions with the tigers they will breed into non-lions or tigers. 'Species' is yet another word that has fallen victim to ideaology, in some quarters

Indeed it has. We can see the blood on your hands.

Now, would you actually go back and go and READ and UNDERSTAND what people have been telling you? "Ring species", ahem? Stop trying to tell biologists that they don't know what they're talking about when you don't know the first thing yourself.

"Ring species", sir.

(Eyes closed, arms folded, rocking back and forth)

donotfeedthetrollsdonotfeedthetrollsdonotfeedthetrollsdonotfeedthetrolls...

The Rev is always right.

PBH, if you can't be bothered to read what's been written and respond to it rather than around it, I can't be bothered to write it to you to begin with.

If he's always right, get him to explain ring species. I'm lost.

The liger decoy actually proves the point. Don't try to tell a zoo-keeper that if he runs the lions with the tigers they will breed into non-lions or tigers.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

It has been around since Adam

Heywood muses if a species adapts to something, that adaptation must be "written" somewhere ... how could a species tranformation event - macroevolution - involve the specific changes called for by the environment

When Species A needed to change to B

Nature is a mean sucker.

It would appear that in that country [Libya, ie., Africa] animals of diverse species meet, on account of the rainless climate, at the watering-places, and there pair together; and that such pairs will often breed if they be nearly of the same size and have periods of gestation of the same length. For it is said that they are tamed down in their behaviour towards each other by extremity of thirst. And, by the way, unlike animals elsewhere, they require to drink more in wintertime than in summer: for they acquire the habit of not drinking in summer, owing to the circumstance that there is usually no water then; and the mice, if they drink, die. Elsewhere also bastard-animals are born to heterogeneous pairs; thus in Cyrene the wolf and the bitch will couple and breed; and the Laconian hound is a cross between the fox and the dog. They say that the Indian dog is a cross between the tiger and the bitch, not the first cross, but a cross in the third generation; for they say that the first cross is a savage creature. They take the bitch to a lonely spot and tie her up: if the tiger be in an amorous mood he will pair with her; if not he will eat her up, and this casualty is of frequent occurrence.

The question is not whether we do or do not have hybrids: these hybrids certainly tell us something. No-one would claim to know all there is to know about any species, and it may be that some "species" are really far end-members of other species. There are major challenges in some areas of classification. Linnaeus, Cuvier, Owen & co. recognized that. What is undeniable is the overwhelming fact that species, as special units, exist. Darwin recognized as much, and wrote it into the title of his most famous work. Aspects of his proposals appear to negate the title of his work, as was pointed out at the time and has been pointed out ever since.
There was a time when "experiment" was thought of as practical verification of whatever the experimenter thought should happen. It was easily proved that mice spontaneously generated from grain, that getting rid of bad blood healed the patient, and so on. It's easy.
Those times have entirely passed by, have they?

What is undeniable is the overwhelming fact that species, as special units, exist.

I deny this.

Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution of genes and microevolution is within-species evolution of genes.

— John S. Wilkins in Talk Origins

Dawkins is very gene-centric, and not at all concerned with taxonomic aspects of evolution, which is common among British evolutionists. For example, Maynard Smith followed his teacher Haldane in the view that species were merely conventional. But that is not the consensus among all evolutionary biologists. While there are species deniers, such as Ereshevsky, Pleijel and Cracraft, overall I think the consensus is that species are real things. What is not a consensus is that the rank of "species", what Mayr called the "species category", is a real rank. This can be understood if you take something else that is not a "real" kind of thing - say, "house" - and say that while particular houses are real things, there is no single type of thing that is a house.

Quote from NEW SCIENTIST, April this year: "To perform its biological functions, DNA has to carry out various manoeuvres, twisting, turning and docking with proteins at just the right place. No problem for a metre-long stringy molecule like DNA, one might think. Yet on the far smaller scale where the real action takes place - typically a few hundred bases - DNA is pretty rigid. And then there's the mystery of how proteins meet up with just the right parts of the double helix. Biochemists have long suspected water molecules are important: concentrations of them around DNA appear to correlate with biological activity. It turns out that water undergoes radical changes as it approaches the surface of DNA. As the molecules draw near the double helix, the seething network of hydrogen bonds within bulk water becomes disrupted, and the motion of individual molecules becomes more and more sluggish. The latest research focuses on what happens around the "troughs" in the double helix formed by specific base pairs. It seems that water molecules linger longer and rotate more slowly around some base pairs than others. Suddenly that link between hydration levels and biological activity doesn't seem so perplexing. After all, the base pairs on DNA are the building blocks of genes, and their sequence dictates the order in which amino acids are stitched together to make proteins. If water molecules linger longer around some base pairs than others, the level of hydration will mirror the sequence of base pairs. ..... ." Last time I quoted from this paper (WATER - THE QUANTUM ELIXIR) one contributor found it desirable to warn the tender contributors about junky publications in NEW SCIENTIST!

This is the Quantum Era. Science out there is actually beginning to see how organisms really work. The antiquated row-boat of what might be called remnant, Dawkins-style Darwinism has the Queen Mary of technological advance bearing down.

If the rowers could decide, between themselves, whether species really exist, genes really have meaning, dogs give birth to cats, and whether people such as Galileo, Newton & Einstein were completely dumb (not to mention fathers of biology, such as Linnaeus, Cuvier & Owen) they might make a show worthy of the imminent revolution.

The problem is, if all the scientists talk confusion, we get confused and potentially retrogressive policy.
Well, I'd rather be out swimming in some of that water. You nearly have to go out to sea to find any in Australia at the moment. They had to shut 2 lanes of the swimming pool the other day.

Last time I quoted from this paper (WATER - THE QUANTUM ELIXIR) one contributor found it desirable to warn the tender contributors about junky publications in NEW SCIENTIST!

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Re "Think how much embarrassment you could have avoided."

That doesn't seem to be one of his goals?

Henry

This hasn't proved anything to me. This is simply an ignorantium elenchii, no content whatsoever! I'm noticing this as a general trend on this site.

Give me something intelligent to look at sometime....(yawn).

This hasn't proved anything to me. This is simply an ignorantium elenchii, no content whatsoever! I'm noticing this as a general trend on this site.

Give me something intelligent to look at sometime....(yawn).

I came here looking for some intelligent answers to Macro Evolution or something.

Total disappointment.

"Words are not the master of science; science is, or should be, the master of its words. But we can inquire how scientists use their words, and whether they use them consistently. And having done that, we can inquire whether others who are not scientists read too much into them, or use them in a totally different way."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#barriers

Why should it be? Are you willing to show me Science without words? Whats your reasoning here?

Are you also aware that Logos governs Science? Did you know that Science is a part of Logos, and to argue against Logos, you would have to argue against logic, words, reason, Science and etc. and so on to avoid this distinction?

Someone is not very informed here.

Next part to Talk Origins I'd like to address on this article:

"Antievolutionists try to make out that macroevolution is a tautology, the way they claim that natural selection is a tautology. The implication is that macroevolution cannot be tested and shown to be wrong, and therefore it is not science." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#barriers

Guess why? Perhaps because Darwin used the terms interchangeably. If you wish to debate that Darwin had nothing to do with Evolution (as I"ve had so many Evolutionists do in the past) I'd be willing to discuss the numerous Evolutionists who have agreed with him on the nature of the terms here. We have determined that linguistically, they are derived from the same concept, and therefore, when one's tautological the other follows. Another problem with eliminating logic from the discussion.

I don't know how many times I saw this article take quotes out of context. Half of the time, Talk Origin makes a chronic habitual problem with taking incomplete quotes from Creation Scientists...and for this reason, I have a hard time believing in anything they have to say. Please tell me Evolution has something better to offer than Talk Origins. This seriously makes me laugh.

I've concluded Evolution is no more than Ideology.

Good night :).

When I came here, I thought I was going to get some intelligent responses. I mean, I had all of these guys from these other debate forums bragging on you guys. Where are these oh so incredibly intelligent arguments I've been hearing of?

When I came here, I thought I was going to get some intelligent responses. I mean, I had all of these guys from these other debate forums bragging on you guys. Where are these oh so incredibly intelligent arguments I've been hearing of?

Hey I'm not a frequenter of T/O but I'd have said this page is fulfilling the purpose for which it was put here. 1) Some people actually admitted that neither they nor science know everything in relation to Origins. Here is ground on which science can advance. Small patch of ground, but refreshing. 2) The Provider resisted the temptation to censor arguments that he might not agree with. A tiny minority of other Providers haven't even had that much Science or Democracy to their name. 3) There was a genuine effort to understand on the part of some contributors, without recourse to idealogical recrimination.
It is possible to divide between science and religion.
I've been censored at TalkOrigins and I'm effectively barred from most Evolution and indeed most "Science" publications, but the Competition over the road, if you know what I mean, ban me as well.
In defense of both "sides": if something of the order of a dog naturally giving birth to a cat ever happened (i.e., failure of organisms to reproduce after their kind), you can tear up every Bible in existence and throw it in the trash can. On the other hand, if life wasn't unrolled as though by the function of a spreading tree, you can tear up Science. Once people catch on that the fossil record is NOT a true ancestral or blood-relation sequence, and stop contradicting other people's legitimate beliefs in the name of Science, the defensive reaction of retreat to YEC will relax.

I came here looking for some intelligent answers to Macro Evolution or something. Total disappointment.

That's a relief. Lenny's here after all. You had me worried.

"Words are not the master of science; science is, or should be, the master of its words. But we can inquire how scientists use their words, and whether they use them consistently. And having done that, we can inquire whether others who are not scientists read too much into them, or use them in a totally different way." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.h... Why should it be? Are you willing to show me Science without words? Whats your reasoning here?

— Your Competition

Are you also aware that Logos governs Science? Did you know that Science is a part of Logos, and to argue against Logos, you would have to argue against logic, words, reason, Science and etc. and so on to avoid this distinction?

"Antievolutionists try to make out that macroevolution is a tautology, the way they claim that natural selection is a tautology. The implication is that macroevolution cannot be tested and shown to be wrong, and therefore it is not science." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.h... Guess why? Perhaps because Darwin used the terms interchangeably.

If you wish to debate that Darwin had nothing to do with Evolution (as I"ve had so many Evolutionists do in the past) I'd be willing to discuss the numerous Evolutionists who have agreed with him on the nature of the terms here. We have determined that linguistically, they are derived from the same concept, and therefore, when one's tautological the other follows. Another problem with eliminating logic from the discussion.

I think he meant 'LEGOS'.

I've been censored at TalkOrigins and I'm effectively barred from most Evolution and indeed most "Science" publications,

Actually, no.

But keep wearing the "persecution garments" if it makes you feel better.

Davison returns?

Comment #131521 Posted by Philip Bruce Heywood on September 19, 2006 09:26 AM (e) ... Crosses between lions and tigers, and indeed many such close species, if they did occur naturally, could not naturally succeed and arguably could not succeed over time, even with human intervention. For the purposes of a discussion about natural processes these crosses are infertile. Thinking people can go on and dissect all the other misinformation. ...

— Philip Bruce Heywood

The interesting thing about the Przewalski's horse is that it while it is completely interfertile with the domestic horse, it has a different number of chromosomes: 66 chromosomes in Przewalski's horse versus 64 in the domestic horse. This disposes of the formerly common creationist claim that differing chromosome counts would make breeding impossible, so equally make speciation impossible. (It's less common now as more and more creationists realize how much speciation they need to support the Ark nonsense.)

Of course, by claiming that there are shades of grey between genders, Wayne Francis undercuts the natural foundation of counting and distorts the natural origin of mathematics! HOW DARE HE ASSAULT MATH!

(Sorry, but that's still funny. See the article before this one if you don't know what I'm talking about.)

The interesting thing about the Przewalski's horse is that it while it is completely interfertile with the domestic horse, it has a different number of chromosomes: 66 chromosomes in Przewalski's horse versus 64 in the domestic horse.

Re "66 chromosomes in Przewalski's horse versus 64 in the domestic horse."

I'd guess that (66/2) + (64/2) = 65 would be the result? (Unless there's other complications that affect it.)

Henry

Wayne Francis's #132447 above:

Several good points, dude! Thanks!

Not that anything will dent PBH's shield of impenetrability...but at least I appreciated your thoughtful comments.

Words are not the master of science; science is, or should be, the master of its words. Does this look familiar? Lets see if Science can survive without words shall we?

— Your Competition

Logos is meaningless? Lets see, that would mean that your reasoning and discernment abilities are obviously not what you are showing here (at least I hope not, because if so, they are poor). You have now given my statement about logos logical meaning just by attempting to deny its meaning. Logos still prevails.

Here's the wikipedia article on Prz. Horses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przewalski%27s_Horse

The offspring of a domestic and a Pzewalski's horse will have 65 chromosomes, one of which will be unpaired.

There are some species of butterfly that make this feat look positively dull, where individuals of the same species can have between 17 and 44 chromosomes, with no fertility loss!

Comment #132577 Posted by Stevaroni on September 22, 2006 11:43 AM (e) The interesting thing about the Przewalski's horse is that it while it is completely interfertile with the domestic horse, it has a different number of chromosomes: 66 chromosomes in Przewalski's horse versus 64 in the domestic horse. Whoah! now that's completely cool! Michael, ya gotta point me to more informtion on that one! How dows it end up working? Do the offspring get 64 full chromosomes, with two half-chromosomes or something? do the missing 2 halves self-replicate? Do you end up with only 64? Will Lassie get help to little Timmy in time? Do tell.

— Stevaroni

It would seem to me that it wouldn't be simply the *number* of chromosomes that would make the difference, but whether the genes from each set would still be able to line up with each other. In humans and chimps, for instance, one of the chromosomes got broken into two, so they have different NUMBERS. But if the genes on the two broken halves could still line up together with their corresponding ones on the single chromosome, it would seem to not make any difference.

(Although, IIRC, one of the human sequences here is also inverted, which perhaps WOULD affect its ability to pair up the proper genes).

Yes?

As I understand it, Lenny, humans have a fused chromosome, from chromosomes 2 a and 2 b of the ancestral primate set.

Doh!! See what happens when you don't do some research and just go on hungover memory (ohhhh, my head --- why do I keep doing this every single weekend?)

But my observation still applies --- it's not the number of chromosomes that matter, it's how well the corresponding genes can line up with each other. Theoretically, it would seem, if one partner had one single enormous chromosome with all its genes lined up on it, and another partner had a zillion chromosomes, each consisting of just one gene, then each gene would still be able to find and pair with its corresponding bunkmate in the other partner, and reproduction would chug right along with no problem.

Yes?

Never mind whether lions and tigers can interbreed, for real macro-evolution consider Helacyton gartleri, a single-celled amoeboid organism originating from human tissue. Does anyone know how taxonomists handle it? My understanding of cladistics is that it should be considered a primate, but to me a primate has hair and can swing around in trees.

Never mind whether lions and tigers can interbreed, for real macro-evolution consider Helacyton gartleri, a single-celled amoeboid organism originating from human tissue. Does anyone know how taxonomists handle it?

— Richard Simons

But my observation still applies --- it's not the number of chromosomes that matter, it's how well the corresponding genes can line up with each other. Theoretically, it would seem, if one partner had one single enormous chromosome with all its genes lined up on it, and another partner had a zillion chromosomes, each consisting of just one gene, then each gene would still be able to find and pair with its corresponding bunkmate in the other partner, and reproduction would chug right along with no problem.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Well I'd better go. I have to tell the zoo - keeper to take down all the animal identification signs because they will lead future biology graduates astray. On the way I'll tell the neighbour to get his horses out from among his cattle quick-time. Anything could happen, genetics-wise, if he doesn't. Better buy some cat food, too. The bitch is due to pup, and all I saw was wildcats. Just when I thought I had things sorted out. Blast!

Hey Heywood, please go blither somewhere else. The grownups are talking here.

Basically, as I understand it, there's no problem in the first hybrid generation because the kid has one copy of the giant chromosome, one copy each of the zillion little chromosomes, thus two copies of every gene, hooray. The problem is when the kid tries to reproduce, hir cells have to undergo meiosis, and they have no way to realize that the giant chromosome is actually the counterpart of all the little ones.

I am interested in the issue of human evolution. Clearly the human species did evolve and we can see stages in that evolution from ape to fully human.

But I wonder about the mechanisms invovled. If the mechanism is supposed to be random mutation plus natural selection is that credible?

Everything I have read about hominids suggests that
(a) their populations were v. small and (b) they tended to live in fairly isolated bands.

Given the small time frame here - 3-5 million years, is it credible that so many successful random mutations could have taken place during that time AND could then have successfully spread among hominids. You have to appreciate of course that man is a social animal. If person A has a successful random mutation i.e. that can be successfully passed on it doesn't mean that would spread through the hominid population. For one thing person B could have an unsuccessful mutation which affect the efficiency of the small group and so cancel out person A's advantage. You'd have to look at the average success of the group as a whole. For another a successful random mutation wouldn't necessarily be a plus. Among the less pleasant of human traits is the "tall poppy" syndrome our tendency to gang up on anyone displaying skills. Someone who say showed ability to get more food might well become and object of envy and become the victim of group action.

Has anyone looked at the maths of all this? I wouldn't claim to be able to understand it from that point of view. But it does seem that (a) hominids underwent rapid changes that require all sorts of co-ordinated changes in body chemistry (b) there weren't a lot of them and (c) they tended to live in isolated groups.

Don't these three factors require some response from orthodox neo-Darwinians? Are we sure that normal random mutation plus natural selection could
produce these changes over this timescale in such small populations? Especially since in the last 10,000 years, so scientists tell us, we have seen no significant changes in the human gene pool.

Field sez:

"Don't these three factors require some response from orthodox neo-Darwinians?"

Gee, they probably haven't even thought of it at all! Let's tell every evolutionary biologist right now! They need to rethink the entire FIELD of human evolution!!! They might even recommend you for the Nobel prize or something!

Field, what the heck is an 'orthodox neo-Darwinian'? Is that the same as being an orthodox donut?

Re "3-5 million years, "

What would be maybe 150k to 300k generations.

Average mutation rate for coding genes is (iirc) between 1.5 and 2.

That gives on the order of 225k to 600k coding gene mutations during that period. Sounds like rather a lot to me. (Unless I messed up the math or the data.)

(k = 1000)

Re "hominids underwent rapid changes that require all sorts of co-ordinated changes in body chemistry"

Why would it require a bunch of chemistry changes? I thought our functional chemistry was very similar to that of the other apes.

Henry

Field wrote: If the mechanism is supposed to be random mutation plus natural selection is that credible?

Don't these three factors require some response from orthodox neo-Darwinians?

Are we sure that normal random mutation plus natural selection could produce these changes over this timescale in such small populations?

Especially since in the last 10,000 years, so scientists tell us, we have seen no significant changes in the human gene pool.

Everything I have read about hominids suggests that (a) their populations were v. small and (b) they tended to live in fairly isolated bands. Given the small time frame here - 3-5 million years, is it credible that so many successful random mutations could have taken place during that time AND could then have successfully spread among hominids.

— field

You have to appreciate of course that man is a social animal. If person A has a successful random mutation i.e. that can be successfully passed on it doesn't mean that would spread through the hominid population. For one thing person B could have an unsuccessful mutation which affect the efficiency of the small group and so cancel out person A's advantage. You'd have to look at the average success of the group as a whole.

For another a successful random mutation wouldn't necessarily be a plus. Among the less pleasant of human traits is the "tall poppy" syndrome our tendency to gang up on anyone displaying skills. Someone who say showed ability to get more food might well become and object of envy and become the victim of group action.

Especially since in the last 10,000 years, so scientists tell us, we have seen no significant changes in the human gene pool.

About the most that can be said for "tall poppy" syndrome is that the poppies in his Field's are showing distinct signs of wilt.

Henry seems to be getting close to answering my (layman's) question whereas some of the other responses seem polemical rather than to the point.

Some follow up questions if you don't mind:

1. Assuming say 500k mutations, how many are going to be "successful", how many "neutral" and how many "negative". Can we give an estimate? And with do the estimates match up to what we know about the difference in gene make up of humans and chimps?

2. Are coding mutations always passed on through the generations?

3. Why did so many seem to be to do with the brain?

Whilst you say no changes in body chemistry are required, I would dispute that. Or put it another way, for a gene mutation to be successful it either has to create a new chemical environment which does not harm the organism or must have no harmful effects on the existing chemical environment of the organism. I'm not a sceintist so find it hard to express this - but if say a gene mutation led to excessive build up of free radicals in cells, that would presumably be harmful. That's what I was getting at. Every successful mutation has to avoid such harmful effects. The more complex the organism, the more difficult I would suggest it is for that to be achieved randomly.

If one reads about what goes on at the micro level in cells, it is all happening with such precision and speed that it does seem remarkable that so many mutations in such a complex mechanism could be successful on a random basis.

For those who ask what alternative I am peddling, my view is that other mechanisms in addition to random mutation and natural selection were invovled. These I would lable Interactive Evolution - which we know does exist: epigenetic inheritance being a well attested example. I think in ways we don't yet fully understand things such as diet, brain chemistry and other factors were acting as feedback loops to create a sort of Lamarckian evolution that became incredibly rapid.

I freely admit I'm not a scientist. But I do know many scientists have over the years been sceptical on similar grounds.

I think Anton Mates misunderstood mt point about teh group. "Successful" mutatino A can only succeed if Group x survives. It won't necessarily pass beyond the group. If Mutation B is dragging the group down (but not necessarily undermining the carrier's ability to reproduce within the group), then mutation A will have no positive effect on group A's
prospect of survival.

Average mutation rate for coding genes is (iirc) between 1.5 and 2.

That gives on the order of 225k to 600k coding gene mutations during that period. Sounds like rather a lot to me. (Unless I messed up the math or the data.)

(k = 1000)

Re "hominids underwent rapid changes that require all sorts of co-ordinated changes in body chemistry"

Why would it require a bunch of chemistry changes? I thought our functional chemistry was very similar to that of the other apes.

Henry

Field Wrote; Assuming say 500k mutations, how many are going to be "successful", how many "neutral" and how many "negative". Can we give an estimate?

"I see the main problem to be not the concept of selection but rather the often abused and confused concept of random variation.

Even on UcD some can still be heard making the assertion that Darwinism offers no room for religion as it insists on randomness."

Yes, but that description doesn't follow, it is the strawman. Selection means that the process isn't fully random. ("Shit happens, but shit is good for you.") If some randomness is a problem, they should have trouble with physics as well. ("Fundamentally everything is built on shit happening. The difference is that in the classical regime you can really see that the shit flows downhill, as rivers.")

Not forgetting selection besides easily observable variation must be fundamental when teaching. Fundies will never accept science anyway. If it isn't randomness that is the strawman problem, it will be back to the fundamental problem that it isn't created.

"Nevertheless, it should be easy to point out that random should not be confused with no purpose, as the latter one is a religious position."

Right, if not confused with purpose. No purpose is the supportable scientific position AFAIK. For example, John Wilkins discuss adapted systems ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html ). It is another thing is that it is convenient to ascribe intelligent agents purposes. Aside from that 'purpose' is the religious position. What is the purpose of evolution?

Every successful mutation has to avoid such harmful effects. The more complex the organism, the more difficult I would suggest it is for that to be achieved randomly.

— field

If one reads about what goes on at the micro level in cells, it is all happening with such precision and speed that it does seem remarkable that so many mutations in such a complex mechanism could be successful on a random basis.

I think Anton Mates misunderstood mt point about teh group. "Successful" mutatino A can only succeed if Group x survives. It won't necessarily pass beyond the group. If Mutation B is dragging the group down (but not necessarily undermining the carrier's ability to reproduce within the group), then mutation A will have no positive effect on group A's prospect of survival.