It's more than genes, it's networks and systems

Posted 24 July 2010 by PZ Myers

Most of you don't understand evolution. I mean this in the most charitable way; there's a common conceptual model of how evolution occurs that I find everywhere, and that I particularly find common among bright young students who are just getting enthusiastic about biology. Let me give you the Standard Story, the one that I get all the time from supporters of biology.

Evolution proceeds by mutation and selection. A novel mutation occurs in a gene that gives the individual inheriting it an advantage, and that person passes it on to their children who also gets the advantage and do better than their peers, and leave more offspring. Given time, the advantageous mutation spreads through the population so the entire species has it.

One example is the human brain. An ape man millions of years ago acquired a mutation that made his or her brain slightly larger, and since those individuals were slightly smarter than other ape men, it spread through the population. Then later, other mutations occured and were selected for and so human brains gradually got larger and larger.

You either know what's wrong here or you're feeling a little uneasy—I gave you enough hints that you know I'm going to complain about that story, but if your knowledge is at the Evolutionary Biology 101 level, you may not be sure what it is.

Just to make you even more queasy, the misunderstanding here is one that creationists have, too. If you've ever encountered the cryptic phrase "RM+NS" ("random mutation + natural selection") used as a pejorative on a creationist site, you've found someone with this affliction. They've got it completely wrong.

Here's the problem, and also a brief introduction to Evolutionary Biology 201.

First, it's not exactly wrong — it's more like taking one good explanation of certain kinds of evolution and making it a sweeping claim that that is how all evolution works. By reducing it to this one scheme, though, it makes evolution far too plodding and linear, and reduces it all to a sort of personal narrative. It isn't any of those things. What's left out in the 101 story, and in creationist tales, is that: evolution is about populations, so many changes go on in parallel; selectable traits are usually the product of networks of genes, so there are rarely single alleles that can be categorized as the effector of change; and genes and gene networks are plastic or responsive to the environment. All of these complications make the actual story more complicated and interesting, and also, perhaps to your surprise, make evolutionary change faster and more powerful.

Think populations

Mutations are the root of biological variation, of course, but we often have a naive view of their consequences. Most mutations are neutral. Even advantageous mutations are subject to laws of chance in their propagation, and a positive selection coefficient does not mean there will be an inexorable march to fixation, where every individual has the allele. This is also true of deleterious mutations: chance often dominates, and unless it is a strongly negative allele, like an embryonic lethal mutation, there's also a chance it can spread through the population.

Stop thinking of mutations as unitary events that either get swiftly culled, because they're deleterious, or get swiftly hauled into prominence by the uplifting crane of natural selection. Mutations are usually negligible changes that get tossed into the stewpot of the gene pool, where they simmer mostly unnoticed and invisible to selection. Look at human faces, for instance: they're all different, and unless you're looking at the extremes of beauty or ugliness, the variations simply don't make much difference. Yet all those different faces really are the result of subtly different combinations of mutant forms of genes.

"Combinations" is the magic word. A single mutation rarely has a significant effect on a feature, but the combination of multiple mutations may have a detectable or even novel effect that can be seen by natural selection. And that's what's going on all the time: the population is a huge reservoir of genetic variation, and what we do when we reproduce is sort and mix and generate new combinations that are then tested in the environment.

Compare it to a game of poker. A two of hearts in itself seems to be a pathetic little card, but if it's part of a flush or a straight or three of a kind, it can produce a winning hand. In the game, it's not the card itself that has power, it's its utility in a pattern or combination of other cards. A large population like ours is a great shuffler that is producing millions of new hands every day.

We know that this recombination is essential to the rapid acquisition of new phenotypes. Here are some results from a classic experiment by Waddington. Waddington noted that fruit flies expressed the odd trait of developing four wings (the bithorax phenotype) instead of two if they were exposed to ether early in development. This is not a mutation! This is called a phenocopy, where an environmental factor induces an effect similar to a genetic mutation.

What Waddington did next was to select for individuals that expressed the bithorax phenotype most robustly, or that were better at resisting the ether, and found that he could get a progressive strengthening of the response.

The progress of selection for or against a bithorax-like response to ether treatment in two wild-type populations. Experiments 1 and 2 initially showed about 25 and 48% of the bithorax (He) phenotype.

This occurred over 10s of generations — far, far too fast for this to be a consequence of the generation of new mutations. What Waddington was doing was selecting for more potent combinations of alleles already extant in the gene pool.

This was confirmed in a cool way with a simple experiment: the results in the graph above were obtained from wild-caught populations. Using highly inbred laboratory strains that have greatly reduced genetic variation abolishes the outcome.

Jonathan Bard sees this as a powerful potential factor in evolution.

Waddington's results have excited considerable controversy over the years, for example as to whether they reflect threshold effects or hidden variation. In my view, these arguments are irrelevant to the key point: within a population of organisms, there is enough intrinsic variability that, given strong selection pressures, minor but existing variants in a trait that are not normally noticeable can rapidly become the majority phenotype without new mutations. The implications for evolution are obvious: normally silent mutations in a population can lead to adaptation if selection pressures are high enough. This view provides a sensible explanation of the relatively rapid origins of the different beak morphologies of Darwin's various finches and of species flocks.

Think networks

One question you might have at this point is that the model above suggests that mutations are constantly being thrown into the population's gene pool and are steadily accumulating — it means that there must be a remarkable amount of genetic variation between individuals (and there is! It's been measured), yet we generally don't see most people as weird and obvious mutants. That variation is largely invisible, or represents mere minor variations that we don't regard as at all remarkable. How can that be?

One important reason is that most traits are not the product of single genes, but of combinations of genes working together in complex ways. The unit producing the phenotype is most often a network of genes and gene products, such at this lovely example of the network supporting expression and regulation of the epidermal growth factor (EGF) pathway.

The EGF pathway (from www.sabiosciences.com/pathwaycentral.php)

That is awesomely complex, and yes, if you're a creationist you're probably wrongly thinking there is no way that can evolve. The curious thing is, though, that the more elaborate the network, the more pieces tangled into the pathway, the smaller the effect of any individual component (in general, of course). What we find over and over again is that many mutations to any one component may have a completely indetectable effect on the output. The system is buffered to produce a reliable yield.

This is the way networks often work. Consider the internet, for example: a complex network with many components and many different routes to get a single from Point A to Point B. What happens if you take out a single node, or even a set of nodes? The system routes automatically around any damage, without any intelligent agency required to consciously reroute messages.

But further, consider the nature of most mutations in a biological network. Simple knockouts of a whole component are possible, but often what will happen are smaller effects. These gene products are typically enzymes; what happens is a shift in kinetics that will more subtly modify expression. The challenge is to measure and compute these effects.

Graph analysis is showing how networks can be partitioned and analysed, while work on the kinetics of networks has shown first that it is possible to simplify the mathematics of the differential equation models and, second, that the detailed output of a network is relatively insensitive to changes in most of the reaction parameters. What this latter work means is that most gene mutations will have relatively minor effects on the networks in which their proteins are involved, and some will have none, perhaps because they are part of secondary pathways and so redundant under normal circumstances. Indirect evidence for this comes from the surprising observation that many gene knockouts in mice result in an apparently normal phenotype. Within an evolutionary context, it would thus be expected that, across a population of organisms, most mutations in a network would effectively be silent, in that they would give no selective advantage under normal conditions. It is one of the tasks of systems biologists to understand how and where mutations can lead to sufficient variation in networks properties for selection to have something on which to act.

Combine this with population effects. The population can accumulate many of these sneaky variants that have no significant effect on most individuals, but under conditions of strong selection, combinations of these variants, that together can have detectable effects, can be exposed to selection.

Think flexible genes

Another factor in this process (one that Bard does not touch on) is that the individual genes themselves are not invariant units. Mutations can affect how genes contribute to the network, but in addition, the same allele can have different consequences in different genetic backgrounds — it is affected by the other genes in the network — and also has different consquences in different external environments.

Everything is fluid. Biology isn't about fixed and rigidly invariant processes — it's about squishy, dynamic, and interactive stuff making do.

Now do you see what's wrong with the simplistic caricature of evolution at the top of this article? It's superficial; it ignores the richness of real biology; it limits and constrains the potential of evolution unrealistically. The concept of evolution as a change in allele frequencies over time is one small part of the whole of evolutionary processes. You've got to include network theory and gene and environmental interactions to really understand the phenomena. And the cool thing is that all of these perspectives make evolution an even more powerful force.

Bard J (2010) A systems biology view of evolutionary genetics. Bioessays 32: 559-563.

106 Comments

MrG · 24 July 2010

Good stuff.

GuessWho · 24 July 2010

Just to make you even more queasy, the misunderstanding here is one that creationists have, too. If you've ever encountered the cryptic phrase "RM+NS" ("random mutation + natural selection") used as a pejorative on a creationist site, you've found someone with this affliction. They've got it completely wrong.

Okay, this has totally thrown me off guard here... Not only is that formulation the easiest way to explain the whole process to a layman, but it will be even harder to explain how the populations and networks of different genes factor in. And by this I mean being more than just epiphenomenal things that take affect as a result of mutation and selection.

Stephen · 24 July 2010

Thanks for clarifying it, I'll be sure to send my partially retarded Xians here the next time I have to deal with someone who doesn't understand evolution. I know they won't actually read it, but they also won't listen to me, so why bother wasting my time trying to explain it?

MrG · 24 July 2010

GuessWho said: Not only is that formulation the easiest way to explain the whole process to a layman, but it will be even harder to explain how the populations and networks of different genes factor in.

Yeah, but that formulation is also simplistic verging on dodgy. Try "genetic variation and selection effects" ... that sounds broad enough. After all, processes like sex, horizontal gene transfer, and the whole "tangled bank" of symbiotic coevolution can factor in, too.

DS · 24 July 2010

This is exactly why the argument from ignorance and incredulity fails so miserably. An uninformed person can easily dismiss a simplified and fundamentally flawed notion. It takes an expert to understand all of the subtleties that go into modern evolutionary theory. FIrst, you must understand basic genetics. Then you must understand mutations. Then you must understand population genetics. Then you must understand developmental genetics. And when you have mastered all of that you can finally begin to grasp some of the complexities involved. That's why uninformed people and people who are not equipped to look at evidence, or who simply refuse to look at evidence, are not entitled to an opinion. That is why we have experts in all of these fields. That is why we should listen to the experts. Blindly dismissing the experts, because you in your own ignorance cannot imagine how something could work, is simply arrogance.

Mike Elzinga · 24 July 2010

I really like PZ’s explanations. The more we see the underlying details, the more they tie the processes of evolution to the physics and chemistry.

In the physics of complex systems subjected to their surrounding environments, it is often the emergent properties that guide subsequent stages of development within those environments.

Those emergent properties are usually unpredictable (before the fact) characteristics that are manifestations of myriads of underlying physical and chemical processes.

A nice example of selection of emergent features would be the stockiness of the limbs of ambulatory creatures in a gravitational field. As structures get bigger, weight becomes important and gravity becomes an environmental “pressure.” The strength of the emergent limb is proportional to the square of its dimension, i.e., its cross-sectional area. But weight is proportional to the cube of the dimensions of the creature, i.e., its volume.

Those morphological features are both emergent properties that are the result of many underlying processes, no particular one of which is the sole determiner of those gross features. But once those gross features become significant in a gravitational field, they become features which can be modified by selection in subsequent populations.

I like to think of a chain of populations as analogous to a single system that makes its adjustments to surrounding “pressures” by using time-sequenced surrogates of itself. In other words, if one were to take snapshots of successive adult representatives of a species throughout its evolutionary history and play them back in succession, it would look like a single individual changing through time.

A single system “relaxes into” its current potential wells by minimizing its potential energy in the most general sense. Reproducing systems do this through slightly morphed surrogates in successive generations.

Dale Husband · 24 July 2010

DS said: This is exactly why the argument from ignorance and incredulity fails so miserably. An uninformed person can easily dismiss a simplified and fundamentally flawed notion. It takes an expert to understand all of the subtleties that go into modern evolutionary theory. FIrst, you must understand basic genetics. Then you must understand mutations. Then you must understand population genetics. Then you must understand developmental genetics. And when you have mastered all of that you can finally begin to grasp some of the complexities involved. That's why uninformed people and people who are not equipped to look at evidence, or who simply refuse to look at evidence, are not entitled to an opinion. That is why we have experts in all of these fields. That is why we should listen to the experts. Blindly dismissing the experts, because you in your own ignorance cannot imagine how something could work, is simply arrogance.

I think that argument applies to other scientific issues, like Global Warming. For example, look at this comment made by a denialist on my blog: http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/those-terrible-twins-of-climate-change-co2-and-h2o/#comment-646

Well as one of those filthy denier types,… I go along with the basic outline. But CO2 is 0.0383 per cent by weight or 0.06 per cent by mole for dry air. Air has on average 1 per cent water vapor. So we have as a ratio 6 molecules of CO2 for every 10,000 other molecules. Now for those radiant absorption curves that indicate that CO2 has 32 per cent of the absorption spectrum, can you qualify what are the parameters of these measurements. I suspect that if air was used there would be no CO2 reading due to the 6/10000 washout. Even this, what portion of CO2 is human compared to the carbon cycle? I see a fraud here along the same lines as the homeopathy fraud, an exaggeration to extreme of the influence of a molecule. There cannot be any feedback (+ or -) of a entity that is vastly overwhelmed by similarly acting molecules. CO2 is a scarce resource that the planet has been sequendering for 3 billion years. CO2 is not a pollutant. As good citizens of the planet we need to be at peace with the workings of our blessing and not be distracted from the ever real problems we have to deal with. Fancy suggesting (others not here) a fix in the form of what we knew to be nasty and have seen the results from its reduction … sulphur dioxide.

That comment had "moron" written all over it. So I said:

Dale Husband: CO2 is indeed a trace gas, but it can still have a profound effect. Are you aware that there is even less ozone in our atmosphere than CO2, yet it is classed as both essential to life (since it forms a layer to shield us from ultraviolet radiation) and as a pollutant at ground level? Clearly, you haven’t read my other blog entry on the matter of CO2′s role as a greenhouse gas, have you? When you have, you will be much less ignorant, I hope. http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/carbon-dioxide-and-its-greenhouse-effect/

It's doesn't matter how small the amount of a gas appears to be. What matters is what empirical data shows regarding its effects.

Mike Elzinga · 24 July 2010

Dale Husband said: I think that argument applies to other scientific issues, like Global Warming. For example, look at this comment made by a denialist on my blog: http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/those-terrible-twins-of-climate-change-co2-and-h2o/#comment-646
Well as one of those filthy denier types,… I go along with the basic outline. But CO2 is 0.0383 per cent by weight or 0.06 per cent by mole for dry air. Air has on average 1 per cent water vapor. So we have as a ratio 6 molecules of CO2 for every 10,000 other molecules. Now for those radiant absorption curves that indicate that CO2 has 32 per cent of the absorption spectrum, can you qualify what are the parameters of these measurements. I suspect that if air was used there would be no CO2 reading due to the 6/10000 washout. Blah, blah, blah,

This is a perfect example of someone slinging numbers around in order to bamboozle, but who has absolutely no contact with the real world of science. When I was doing work on infrared detecting CCD imagers, I had a blackbody source set up about 2 meters from my infrared spectrometer; in other words, the path through the atmosphere, through the spectrometer and to a liquid nitrogen cooled CCD imager being characterized was about 2 meters. In just that short distance, the absorption lines for CO₂ in the near to mid infrared were easily detectable and served as calibration lines for the spectrometer. Just think what a hundred miles of atmosphere can do.

robert van bakel · 25 July 2010

Actually, this PZ blog was oddly reassuring to me. I always knew that RM-NS worked, and I always knew it worked while I was asleep, awake, or not paying attention. This is not 'rocket science', it is infinately more intricate, and strangely, comprehensible.

Changes occur in populations, advantageous changes could lead to new phenotypes, this COULD give reproductive advantage, the environment could alter, the new advantage could become a disadvantage, the environment could change, new mutations (occuring as I sleep) COULD.... anyway you and I, and nature get the idea.

RBH · 25 July 2010

Mike Elzinga wrote

I like to think of a chain of populations as analogous to a single system that makes its adjustments to surrounding “pressures” by using time-sequenced surrogates of itself. In other words, if one were to take snapshots of successive adult representatives of a species throughout its evolutionary history and play them back in succession, it would look like a single individual changing through time.

And it would be profoundly misleading. One of the toughest notions to get across to lay people is that evolution is a population phenomenon and that diversity within a population is a critical variable. Evolution is not an individual morphing through time/generations, but rather a distribution shifting through time/generations. I know you know that, of course, but there really is difficulty in getting it across to lay audiences and that illustration makes it tough.

RBH · 25 July 2010

Oops. Read the OP before commenting, RBH.

Rusty Catheter · 25 July 2010

So, looking at all these neutral mutations of cistrons,the ones that only change the nucletide but not the amino acid, and the further ones that make conservative amino acid changes, we can summarise that many improved mutations are just waiting for the correct complements to come along.

Point mutations of introns and intercistronic sequences have more immediate effects. If we propose that these regulate cistronic activity by their binding of proteins *like* transcription factors and cis/trans factors, *and* their binding of RNA sequences (let us regard these too as transcription factors) potentially with their own point mutations.

.....then there is considerable scope to modulate the expression of the cistronic genome without any significant alteration of coding sequences.

Yet I think it is not fair to disparage the simplistic model. It is fine for single-gene traits, particularly in bacterial genetics.

Rusty

MrG · 25 July 2010

Dale Husband said: It's doesn't matter how small the amount of a gas appears to be. What matters is what empirical data shows regarding its effects.

Sigh, CO2 is indeed a trace gas. Which means that if it has an appreciable effect, it doesn't take much in the way of an increment to have an appreciable effect. I am willing to cut AGW skeptics a bit of slack -- climate is a very difficult subject, and even the pros admit that sometimes the skeptics make good points. But they keep using up the slack. They have an unfortunate tendency to sound like creationists. Which is because a lot of them ARE creationists.

MartinC · 25 July 2010

"You've got to include network theory and gene and environmental interactions to really understand the phenomena."

You can include whatever you want - it will still remain the old darwinism in new clothes. The only difference is that this "network" enable darwinists to explain what is really observed in nature - sudden changes in morphology or saltationism. It was Richard Goldschmidt who observed and studied phenocopies on butterflies wings btw. As you may know this prominent geneticist dismissed darwinian model and coined the term "systemic mutation" to explain sudden changes observed in nature.

PZ Myers'"network" is now a new helper in this pseudo-scientifical narrative called neodarwinism. "Network" can somehow mysteriously accumulate enough "silent changes" only to expose them at the right moment as phenocopies or phenotypes - and doctor Myers obviously confound these two terms to support his "network" version of darwinism. Actually such "network" approach can inhibit evolution and not to promote it. See "Frozen evolution" or "Elastic not plastic evolution" by professor Flegr here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2823622/

Professor Flegr has mentioned also pleiotropy and epistatic interactions mentioned in PZMyers article using layman words. And so we can see - for one neodarwinist "network" can promote evolution and for another neodarwinist the same network inhibits evolution.

"It is one of the tasks of systems biologists to understand how and where mutations can lead to sufficient variation in networks properties for selection to have something on which to act."

Maybe better solution would be to issue a decree for "system biologists" how to interpret this mysterious "networks" in order to save neodarwinian narrative in the coming years.

Frank J · 25 July 2010

Most of you don't understand evolution.
— PZ Myers

Of course not, only Tony Pagano does. ;-) Seriously, unfortunately I'll be out of town for the next few days, and not be able to contribute much to this thread. Nothing much you said is new to me, but I often find it difficult to convey to others. Your explanation will make it a bit easier. Even when they have it explained to them at the "101" level most people have a habit of retreating to the media (& creationist) caricature. And that sadly includes many scientists who ought to know better. If anything I think fellow chemists have less of an excuse to allow media and creationist misrepresentation than biologists, because they are very aware that cells are not just a collection of molecules, but more importantly of reactions.

MartinC · 25 July 2010

"You've got to include network theory and gene and environmental interactions to really understand the phenomena."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2823622/

"It is one of the tasks of systems biologists to understand how and where mutations can lead to sufficient variation in networks properties for selection to have something on which to act."

Maybe better solution would be to issue a decree for "system biologists" how to interpret this mysterious "networks" in order to save neodarwinian narrative in the coming decades.

Pete Dunkelberg · 25 July 2010

Mr G: Try “genetic variation and selection effects” … that sounds broad enough.

That leaves out a major process: genetic drift.

MrG · 25 July 2010

MartinC said: You can include whatever you want - it will still remain the old darwinism in new clothes.

I tell you guys this OVER AND OVER! The term is "EVIL-utionism"! Can't you get the least thing straight?

DS · 25 July 2010

MartinC wrote:

"You can include whatever you want - it will still remain the old darwinism in new clothes. The only difference is that this “network” enable darwinists to explain what is really observed in nature - sudden changes in morphology or saltationism. It was Richard Goldschmidt who observed and studied phenocopies on butterflies wings btw. As you may know this prominent geneticist dismissed darwinian model and coined the term “systemic mutation” to explain sudden changes observed in nature.:

So evolution can sometimes proceed quickly and can sometimes proceed slowly. What exactly is your point? How is this a problem for evolutionary theory? Do you think that no real scientist has ever considered the effects of pleiotropy and epistasis? Do you honestly believe that these concepts are somehow a problem for modern evolutionary theory?

Here is a news flash for you, no one cares about "neodarwinism". Darwin was right about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. So what? All that we have learned about modern genetics shows that evolution is a complicated process that must be examined on many different levels. Or do you think that "poof" is a better explanation?

Alan Fox · 25 July 2010

DS asks:

Or do you think that “poof” is a better explanation?

I suspect Martin Cadra thinks PEH is a better explanation!

MrG · 25 July 2010

Alan Fox said: I suspect Martin Cadra thinks PEH is a better explanation!

Ah! An associate of the articulate and highly influential John A. Davidson, well known for his groundbreaking work on the leading fringes ... er, edges of science.

DS · 25 July 2010

Well, Martin still has not informed us of exactly what point he was trying to make. However, I did find this quote from the Flegr paper:

"It was argued above that adaptive evolution by means of Darwinian selection of individuals in a population, as well as by means of Dawkinsian competition between alleles in individual loci, is very difficult, if not impossible, in populations of sexual organisms. It is evident, however, that adaptive evolution operates on Earth and that this evolution is especially and extremely efficient in sexual organisms. It follows that a situation must occur, in which all three barriers to adaptive evolution are lifted, or at least temporarily operate with decreased efficiency."

So you can quibble about "neodarwinism" or "Dawkinsian competition" all you want, but evolution is still real and still works in all organisms, whether sexual or asexual.

Dale Husband · 25 July 2010

MrG said:
Alan Fox said: I suspect Martin Cadra thinks PEH is a better explanation!
Ah! An associate of the articulate and highly influential John A. Davidson, well known for his groundbreaking work on the leading fringes ... er, edges of science.

More proof that Creationists are pathological liars.

Mike Elzinga · 25 July 2010

RBH said: Mike Elzinga wrote
I like to think of a chain of populations as analogous to a single system that makes its adjustments to surrounding “pressures” by using time-sequenced surrogates of itself. In other words, if one were to take snapshots of successive adult representatives of a species throughout its evolutionary history and play them back in succession, it would look like a single individual changing through time.
And it would be profoundly misleading. One of the toughest notions to get across to lay people is that evolution is a population phenomenon and that diversity within a population is a critical variable. Evolution is not an individual morphing through time/generations, but rather a distribution shifting through time/generations. I know you know that, of course, but there really is difficulty in getting it across to lay audiences and that illustration makes it tough.

Indeed; I understand the notion of population. It has many of the same characteristics as the notion of ensemble in statistical mechanics. And, in the case of ensembles, if it were not for the spread of energies, and if matter did not interact with matter, there would be no tendency for a thermodynamic system to come to equilibrium with anything. Ensembles have statistical averages and distribution widths that are representations of the instantaneous state of the system to which they refer. In the case of populations, any phenotypic feature would have a mean and a standard deviation. A representative member of that population would be one that has that mean phenotypic feature; and it is this representative that I was picturing as morphing through time. So, as compared with a single system that adjusts to changes in its surroundings by spontaneously adjusting and morphing its current constituents or energy, I was suggesting that reproducing living systems adjust by making surrogates of themselves that contain the variations on which selection takes place. Those surrogates are the populations (ensembles) that respond to environmental changes by adjusting the mean and spread of any relevant phenotypic characteristics. Obviously a single individual lives or dies, just as a particular state in an ensemble becomes available or unavailable. The single system to which I was referring was the “ensemble average” of the population; it isn’t a real creature. The difference is the replication of surrogate ensembles through time. But I think I see your point if you are suggesting that this would cause confusion for the layman. The notion of ensembles in statistical mechanics is important but perhaps a bit subtle for the layman also. Just as is the notion of entropy which refers to the number of ways one can spread a given amount of energy among the microscopic constituents of a system. On the other hand, as I have frequently suggested, the fundamental misconceptions of the ID/creationists start with the notions of thermodynamics. They pushed these misconceptions hard in the beginning back in the 1970s and 80s. The conceptual confusions they reveal here are the same conceptual confusions that permeate everything else.

Frank J · 25 July 2010

More proof that Creationists are pathological liars.
— Dale Husband

Some are. Some are liars but not the pathological "kind." Some are just "possessed" by Morton's Demon (including it's OEC variants). Some honestly believe that they must tell fairy tales to save the world. Some (IDers) know better than to tell mutually contradictory fairy tales that don't fit the evidence so they just promote unreasonable doubt of evolution and let the audience infer what makes them feel good. And some, though now I'm referring to the rank and file, not the activists, have just been misled. Some irreversible, some reversibly. That's the "X-axis." On the "Y-axis" we have everyone from the Flat, Geocentric Young Earthers to the common-descent-accepting Old Earthers, non-Biblicals, etc. Any wonder why I rarely use the word "creationist?"

Elisheva Levin · 25 July 2010

Two comments:

1)I think the knowlege we have gained in the past 10 years about what actually happens inside cells with regard to gene expression (Immediate Early Genes, etc) have made the fact of evolution even clearer. The Biology 101 "explanation" is an example of an overgeneralization that leaves out important details. When dealing with enthusiastic beginning students, I always thought it important to bring in Hardy-Weinberg even at the beginning levels because it is so powerful to develop population genetics generalizations earl--even if the students are not ready for all the genetics details. In the '90's we waited until genetics (usually an upper 200 level course) to teach it. I have seen demo lessons to teach Hardy-Weinberg at the high school level conceptually, adding a short calculation for students who have the math skills.

2) I was a geologist before becoming a biologist, and I have some real problems with the current "climate science" that does not seen to take earth history into account. That global climate change has occurred in earth history is beyond dispute, but to claim that the earth is on a linear global warming trend caused primarily by human activity has many problems, not the least of which is that there has been an increase in global temperatures at the end of every interglacial period that had led (sometimes very quickly in a geological time frame) to new glacial advances and global cooling.

The science is not all in on this, and the science in no way dictates that the particular policies being bandied about by political bodies will have the desired effect. I am uncomfortable with the dogma that climate change must be linear and must be global warming, and that it must be stopped. And I worry that tying it to evolution--which is a demonstrated fact--is a mistake for the reasons I cite above.
In fact, I often wonder if the political global warming hysteria tends to demonstrate that most people do not in fact understand evolution, since adaptation to changes in environment is part of that process.

fnxtr · 25 July 2010

Uh-oh. I'm sure glad I'm not standing close to the fan...

Dale Husband · 25 July 2010

Elisheva Levin said: I was a geologist before becoming a biologist, and I have some real problems with the current "climate science" that does not seen to take earth history into account. That global climate change has occurred in earth history is beyond dispute, but to claim that the earth is on a linear global warming trend caused primarily by human activity has many problems, not the least of which is that there has been an increase in global temperatures at the end of every interglacial period that had led (sometimes very quickly in a geological time frame) to new glacial advances and global cooling. The science is not all in on this, and the science in no way dictates that the particular policies being bandied about by political bodies will have the desired effect. I am uncomfortable with the dogma that climate change must be linear and must be global warming, and that it must be stopped. And I worry that tying it to evolution--which is a demonstrated fact--is a mistake for the reasons I cite above. In fact, I often wonder if the political global warming hysteria tends to demonstrate that most people do not in fact understand evolution, since adaptation to changes in environment is part of that process.

Ironically, global warming can indeed cause a thermal backlash due to the Gulf Stream being pushed southward by melting ice water flowing into the north Atlantic from Greenland and Canada. Al Gore even mentioned this danger in his book An Inconvienent Truth. He noted that an inrush of water many thousands of years ago as glacial ice was melting at the end of the last ice age caused Europe to enter another cold spell. So the issue is very complicated, but it's all been dealt with by the experts and explained well enough for educated laymen like myself to follow.

DS · 25 July 2010

Elisheva Levin said: Two comments: 1)I think the knowlege we have gained in the past 10 years about what actually happens inside cells with regard to gene expression (Immediate Early Genes, etc) have made the fact of evolution even clearer. The Biology 101 "explanation" is an example of an overgeneralization that leaves out important details. When dealing with enthusiastic beginning students, I always thought it important to bring in Hardy-Weinberg even at the beginning levels because it is so powerful to develop population genetics generalizations earl--even if the students are not ready for all the genetics details.

I absolutely agree. It is necessary to state that evolution is a genetic phenomena and a population phenomena and to demonstrate why that is true. Hardy Weinberg is really rather easy, both conceptually and mathematically. Why not use it even in the most basic courses? Of course, it doesn't lose any relevance in the more advanced courses where it can be even more fully developed in order to account for many genetic complexities. In the more advances courses, I think it is also important to emphasize molecular phylogenetics and developmental genetics as well. This can help to show how far our understanding has advanced since the time of Darwin.

eric · 25 July 2010

Clearly, MartinC, you have discovered a fatal flaw in this theory. Perhaps you'd like to tell us what alternate theory you have that explains the same phenomena?

And since your complaint seems to be that PZ's model allows for too wide a variety of different results, can we assume that your alternate theory has more stringent limitations on what things it predicts? After all, you would look pretty stupid if you first complained that the ToE is illegitimate because it allows for both fast and slow change, but then proposed an alternative that allows any change at any speed at all...right?

MrG · 25 July 2010

eric said: Clearly, MartinC, you have discovered a fatal flaw in this theory.

I think he's gone away. Might show up tomorrow I suppose.

Matt Young · 25 July 2010

One of the toughest notions to get across to lay people is that evolution is a population phenomenon and that diversity within a population is a critical variable. Evolution is not an individual morphing through time/generations, but rather a distribution shifting through time/generations. I know you [Mike Elzinga] know that, of course, but there really is difficulty in getting it across to lay audiences and that illustration makes it tough.

I had not thought of evolution in precisely the same terms, but the brief discussion between Mike Elzinga and RBH reminded me that in our book, Paul Strode and I implicitly explain precisely why evolution works on populations, not individuals. As Mr. Elzinga put it to me privately, the wings of the distribution are culled asymmetrically, and the average therefore moves with each generation. You may see our treatment here. I do not think it is very hard for the proverbial layperson to understand.

snaxalotl · 25 July 2010

the micro-macro blatherers are likely to think this post argues in their favor: we can get striking phenotype changes by winnowing alleles down to a smaller subset, hence useful evolution is accounted for by micro-evolution (winnowing) not macro-evolution (new alleles). perhaps it should be more readily conceded that (because of combination effects especially) changes in allele frequency generally produce a far more rapid response to natural selection than mutation - without making this explicit concession, creationists think they have a gotcha every time they think they see evidence that an initial diverse allele population can be filtered to produce every necessary species (despite the fact that these super allele populations somehow [megaploidy?] came off the ark). perhaps in making this concession more explicit, it will make more sense that functionally distinctive sub-populations provide very different environments (hence selection) for new mutations, regardless of whether the parent population has yet speciated. i don't want to tell people how to suck eggs, but i'm always seeing the micro-macro people unable to believe that useful new alleles are likely. the response to them is generally "mutation and selection is a fantastic mechanism for creating useful alleles", when it seems they need to hear "yes it does create useful alleles, but reconfiguration is fast and mutation is slow"

Oclarki · 25 July 2010

Sigh...I guess that I need a little help here.

Before asking for that help, though, a wee bit of biographical information. I am a geologist whose understanding of biology is limited to ecological risk assessments (particularly aquatic systems) and a rather insatiable desire to learn about stuff. My understanding of concepts like genetics, molecular biology, evo-devo and the like are improving (at least I think so) by virtue of certain popular-press books and by virtue of reading Nature cover-to-cover every week. Alas, that understanding is not even close to being sufficient to allow me to condense it down to simple compelling statements.

And simple, compelling statements are absolutely necessary to counter the claims of evolution deniers, especially the claims of deniers who merely parrot what they have been told. Lengthy and/ore overly technical explanations do not work so well...they tend to cause eyes to glaze over and brains to freeze up.

In the past I have tried to simplify the complex processes responsible for biological change as (primarily) natural selection (observed and also intuitive) working on variation (also observed and intuitive). Is this wrong? If so, how should I be defining evolution in a way that will not result in eyes-glazing and brain-freezing?

Scott F · 25 July 2010

As an educated lay person ("lay", relative to biology), I only recently came to appreciate the notion of evolution working on populations rather than on an individual lineage, mostly by reading here. I must admit that I was in the Bio 101 (or even Bio 10) camp. (And I thought I had been clever to understand the part where evolution operated on the "individual lineage", as opposed to operating on the individual.) The simple narrative made perfect sense, though there were some gaps in understanding, when moving up the complexity scale from the low level DNA mutations to the higher level "visible" changes in the species.

The hard part to grasp there is the time scale, and the mutability of the genome. That one "critical" mutation didn't happen just once in a single individual (in general, though it might). It happened many times in many individuals. I'm getting the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that the background level of mutation rates in a genome is kind of like the low level "quantum foam" of particle physics. (The analogy is far from perfect, but it's a helpful handle if I don't take it too seriously.) There are just lots and lots of "background" mutations happening all the time, and some times one of them "sticks" in the population, and becomes less random.

But as someone else noted, the more one learns about evolution, the more details that are discovered about how all the pieces fit together, the harder the whole picture is to refute. By all means, push as much of this detail as low in the curriculum as is practical. The details are comprehensible. It's that surface level understanding of evolution that is easier to refute. Get just a little past that surface level, and you'll have a convert for life.

(I know, I know, you've all gotten past that long before. I'm just trying to catch up. :-) Thanks for the continuing education.)

Steve P. · 25 July 2010

DS, Your comments are strictly an appeal to authority. Your idea is dangerously similar to the argument for religious authority claimed hundreds of years ago by theologians. It seems you simply want to trade a papal hat for a lab coat. If TMS is so hard to understand, how do you expect it to gain any traction in the public arena? There seem to be so many exceptions to the rule that the rule should be revisited. Well, how about imbedded information responds to environmental fluctuation? Nah, didn't think that would go over well. Too creationistic. Anyway, I will keep a watch out for the new rule.

DS said: This is exactly why the argument from ignorance and incredulity fails so miserably. An uninformed person can easily dismiss a simplified and fundamentally flawed notion. It takes an expert to understand all of the subtleties that go into modern evolutionary theory. FIrst, you must understand basic genetics. Then you must understand mutations. Then you must understand population genetics. Then you must understand developmental genetics. And when you have mastered all of that you can finally begin to grasp some of the complexities involved. That's why uninformed people and people who are not equipped to look at evidence, or who simply refuse to look at evidence, are not entitled to an opinion. That is why we have experts in all of these fields. That is why we should listen to the experts. Blindly dismissing the experts, because you in your own ignorance cannot imagine how something could work, is simply arrogance.

Mike Elzinga · 25 July 2010

Steve P. said: Well, how about imbedded information responds to environmental fluctuation? Nah, didn't think that would go over well. Too creationistic. Anyway, I will keep a watch out for the new rule.

As long as you are making up rules, perhaps you can finally be the creationist genius that is able to explain how information interacts with matter. Which of the four known forces apply here? Do potential wells form when two pieces of information come together? Does information exert forces on matter and vice-versa? Just how does information tell atoms and molecules how to arrange themselves? Doesn’t go over very well for you, eh? To scientific? Bet you can’t explain it. Bet you will change the subject. Bet you will run away.

Mike Elzinga · 26 July 2010

Oclarki said: Sigh...I guess that I need a little help here. Before asking for that help, though, a wee bit of biographical information. I am a geologist whose understanding of biology is limited to ecological risk assessments (particularly aquatic systems) and a rather insatiable desire to learn about stuff.

A physical analogy might be helpful. A small stream is made up of billions upon billions of water molecules. These molecules come and go through rainfall and evaporation. The course of the stream is determined primarily by the terrain over which the water molecules flow. Some splash out of the stream, some get added, some soak into the ground and banks of the stream. But the stream appears as an entity in itself. It changes course on average because of changes it makes to the terrain as well as by changes to the terrain made by other forces. The stream is a population (ensemble) of individual molecules coming and going but with enough of them to make up an overall configuration we see as the stream. The main difference here is that the molecules are not reproducing. But if they could generate surrogates of themselves before they went out of existence, the semblance of a stream could still be maintained. And it is that stream that follows changes in the terrain as well as makes changes in that terrain.

Steve P. · 26 July 2010

Well, geez Mike I dunno. Maybe er, science will figure it out sometime in the not too distant future? Worth a look IMO. I mean, all these exceptions to the rule if anything are indicative of a need to change the conceptual tragectory. Why are you stuck on NOT considering information as a real entity? Because it has yet to be empirically substantiated? When has that stopped science from moving forward. Rather, it seems it is such intuitions that in fact DRIVE scientific inquiry.

Mike Elzinga said:
Steve P. said: Well, how about imbedded information responds to environmental fluctuation? Nah, didn't think that would go over well. Too creationistic. Anyway, I will keep a watch out for the new rule.
As long as you are making up rules, perhaps you can finally be the creationist genius that is able to explain how information interacts with matter. Which of the four known forces apply here? Do potential wells form when two pieces of information come together? Does information exert forces on matter and vice-versa? Just how does information tell atoms and molecules how to arrange themselves? Doesn’t go over very well for you, eh? To scientific? Bet you can’t explain it. Bet you will change the subject. Bet you will run away.

Mike Elzinga · 26 July 2010

Steve P. said: Well, geez Mike I dunno. Maybe er, science will figure it out sometime in the not too distant future?

Q.E.D.

Scott F · 26 July 2010

The "experts" in a scientific field may seem to the Creationist just like the "authority" figure in a religious context. But there's a difference. In science, anyone can become an expert, an "authority". All you have to do is study hard enough, learn, and earn a place at the table. You become an expert by being expert. In a religious context, "authority" isn't earned. It's either bestowed (by an existing Authority), or it's simply claimed or taken by fiat.

Similarly, I only provisionally accept the opinion of the science "expert". If I want to devote the time and energy, I can (in principle) prove to myself by myself whether the expert is right or not. In a religious context, there is simply no way, no matter how hard I study, or what experiments or observations I make, that I can confirm or deny the "revealed" word of God as given by the "authority" figure. If the revelation isn't given to me, it just isn't attainable even in principle. (In that sense, religion is very anti-democratic, very anti-capitalist.)

So, yes, I rely on the "authority" of those who know the science that I don't know. But only in so far as they prove to be authoritative.

Dale Husband · 26 July 2010

And this is yet another one of the Creationists' blatant lies: Depicting supporters of evolution as being no better than them. Sorry, we do not read some story in ancient scripture and then force all evidence we find to fit that preconcieved dogmatic idea, you twerp.

Steve P. said: DS, Your comments are strictly an appeal to authority. Your idea is dangerously similar to the argument for religious authority claimed hundreds of years ago by theologians. It seems you simply want to trade a papal hat for a lab coat. If TMS is so hard to understand, how do you expect it to gain any traction in the public arena? There seem to be so many exceptions to the rule that the rule should be revisited. Well, how about imbedded information responds to environmental fluctuation? Nah, didn't think that would go over well. Too creationistic. Anyway, I will keep a watch out for the new rule.
DS said: This is exactly why the argument from ignorance and incredulity fails so miserably. An uninformed person can easily dismiss a simplified and fundamentally flawed notion. It takes an expert to understand all of the subtleties that go into modern evolutionary theory. FIrst, you must understand basic genetics. Then you must understand mutations. Then you must understand population genetics. Then you must understand developmental genetics. And when you have mastered all of that you can finally begin to grasp some of the complexities involved. That's why uninformed people and people who are not equipped to look at evidence, or who simply refuse to look at evidence, are not entitled to an opinion. That is why we have experts in all of these fields. That is why we should listen to the experts. Blindly dismissing the experts, because you in your own ignorance cannot imagine how something could work, is simply arrogance.

Mike Elzinga · 26 July 2010

Scott F said: If the revelation isn't given to me, it just isn't attainable even in principle. (In that sense, religion is very anti-democratic, very anti-capitalist.)

If the revelation isn’t given, then you develop and hone the gift of gab and bamboozle rubes into thinking the deity talks to you. Or you can really believe the voices in your head. Either way, you can become the Big Kahuna in your cult and live high off the hog by convincing the rubes to give you money because the deity told you they had to give it to you.

SWT · 26 July 2010

Steve P. said: Well, geez Mike I dunno. Maybe er, science will figure it out sometime in the not too distant future? Worth a look IMO. I mean, all these exceptions to the rule if anything are indicative of a need to change the conceptual tragectory. Why are you stuck on NOT considering information as a real entity? Because it has yet to be empirically substantiated? When has that stopped science from moving forward. Rather, it seems it is such intuitions that in fact DRIVE scientific inquiry.

Please define "information" as you're using the term.

Oclarki · 26 July 2010

Elisheva Levin said: 2) I was a geologist before becoming a biologist, and I have some real problems with the current "climate science" that does not seen to take earth history into account. That global climate change has occurred in earth history is beyond dispute, but to claim that the earth is on a linear global warming trend caused primarily by human activity has many problems, not the least of which is that there has been an increase in global temperatures at the end of every interglacial period that had led (sometimes very quickly in a geological time frame) to new glacial advances and global cooling.

To a certain extent, it seems that convincing geologists both active and former that our CO2 emissions are probably affecting climate is one of the most difficult things to do. Yes, we do understand that climate has changed in the past. Yes, we do understand that there are natural causes for past climate changes. In my opinion (at least), one of the biggest problems faced by those of us who think that unrestrained emission of fossil carbon to the atmosphere in the form of CO2 may not be the best idea we have had is that many with geological knowledge and understanding cannot seem to think in terms of anything less than "geologic time". As geologists by education and/or profession, we should know and understand that the carbon that we release to the atmosphere through our actions has been long sequestered from the active carbon cycle. After all, we (in theory at least) should understand the temporal meaning of "Carboniferous coal", "Cretaceous coal" "Cretaceous oil" and the like. We also should be able to understand how much "fossil" carbon is released to the atmosphere by natural geologic processes. What geologists should be concerned about is that we have figured out ways to convert carbon that has been sequestered for tens to hundreds of millions of years into (primarily) CO2 at a rate that far exceeds the rate of long-sequestered carbon release to the atmosphere from natural geologic processes. If you remain unconvinced, then here is a thought-game: the next time ou fill your gasoline tank, ask yourself where the carbon in your last tank went. Cleary it is not still in the tank, so where did it go? In what form? And when was the last time those particular carbon atoms were in that receptor medium?

Scott F · 26 July 2010

Mike Elzinga said: Either way, you can become the Big Kahuna in your cult and live high off the hog by convincing the rubes to give you money because the deity told you they had to give it to you.

Exactly. That's the part where the Big Kahuna simply takes the "authority" by fiat. You simply claim define guidance, and it is not possible, even in principle, to prove that you are wrong. Or right, for that matter, but such proof is never required, nor even expected by the sheeples.

Oclarki · 26 July 2010

Mike Elzinga said: A physical analogy might be helpful. A small stream is made up of billions upon billions of water molecules. These molecules come and go through rainfall and evaporation. The course of the stream is determined primarily by the terrain over which the water molecules flow. Some splash out of the stream, some get added, some soak into the ground and banks of the stream. But the stream appears as an entity in itself. It changes course on average because of changes it makes to the terrain as well as by changes to the terrain made by other forces. The stream is a population (ensemble) of individual molecules coming and going but with enough of them to make up an overall configuration we see as the stream. The main difference here is that the molecules are not reproducing. But if they could generate surrogates of themselves before they went out of existence, the semblance of a stream could still be maintained. And it is that stream that follows changes in the terrain as well as makes changes in that terrain.

Yes, physical analogies are good..and helpful. Let me narrow the situation down a bit, though. I am facing an RTB parrot across a table. There are people milling about. What do I say...what can I say...to the keeper of the table that is short enough and accurate enough that it gets the people milling about to nod their heads in agreement while at the same time absolutely stumping the RTB parrot?

Mike Elzinga · 26 July 2010

Oclarki said: Let me narrow the situation down a bit, though. I am facing an RTB parrot across a table. There are people milling about. What do I say...what can I say...to the keeper of the table that is short enough and accurate enough that it gets the people milling about to nod their heads in agreement while at the same time absolutely stumping the RTB parrot?

Well, I would be inclined to ask the fellow how he got to the top of the food chain in his RTB cult. I don’t have much patience with intransigent ID/creationists. I let them be culled from the scientific herd. I think that illustrates it. But that is just my approach.

Hygaboo Andersen · 26 July 2010

A look at the original article shows the author admits weak selection effects can not be measured. How convenient! Maybe that's because Darwinian selection itself doesn't exist and is an excuse for pornographers ans Sodomites to reject God!

Since the Darwiniacs who run that godless site want to charge mega-bucks for mere 24-hour access and demand that I register too, I would not survey the entire breadth of the excuse-making. The arrogance and greed of the Darwiniacs when it comes to their pathetic, deliberately abstruse "literature" is truly breathtaking!

Mike Elzinga · 26 July 2010

Man; you can sure see what topics stir up the lunatics.

Oclarki · 26 July 2010

Mike Elzinga said: Well, I would be inclined to ask the fellow how he got to the top of the food chain in his RTB cult. I don’t have much patience with intransigent ID/creationists. I let them be culled from the scientific herd. I think that illustrates it. But that is just my approach.

it seems that the fellow actually volunteered to man the table. In Boulder during the Fall festival a few years ago. Not the wisest of choices, I think, but I will credit the guy for admitting that he was a "physics type" who knew nothing about biology and even less about geology. I did feel somewhat sorry for him since his table was within easy view of the Flatirons and consequently he was somwewhat susceptible to the demand to "explain those" (pointing to said Flatirons) with other observers about (timing is everything, and I am most assuredly going to Hell for intentionally asking such a question within earshot of others). But that was easy..really, really easy for a geologist to do. What is needed, I think, is an accurate, succinct statement explaining evolution to bystanders. Pointing at the Flairons won't do it. In short, how can those of us whose experience and education lie outside of evolutionary biology (and allied interests) describe evolution in a manner that is so basic, so simplistic, that everyone within earshot would be able to understand but that the rube manning the RTB table would be unable to refute in a rational manner?

Mike Elzinga · 26 July 2010

Oclarki said: In short, how can those of us whose experience and education lie outside of evolutionary biology (and allied interests) describe evolution in a manner that is so basic, so simplistic, that everyone within earshot would be able to understand but that the rube manning the RTB table would be unable to refute in a rational manner?

ID/creationist misconceptions are deep and firmly ingrained. This has been the case since the 1960s. But the universe is continually evolving; from the Big Bang, to element formation in stars and supernova, to solar systems and planets, right on up to life itself. It’s what matter does; it condenses. The Greeks (e.g., Democritus and Lucretius) already speculated about some underlying structure and elements that make up what we see around us. Science has been taking matter apart for a few centuries now. ID/creationists don’t get this fundamental fact that hits them in the face every instant of their existence. You simply cannot exist without matter-matter interactions and condensing matter; the universe cannot exist without this. So we take it apart a find out how it works. ID/creationists, in all their literature, have this belief that it is all “spontaneous molecular chaos” down there. Well, it isn’t. The two largest subfields of physics and chemistry are condensed matter physics and organic chemistry. The implications of that go far beyond what the typical ID/creationist is able to recognize. That is why they claim evolution is impossible without intelligent intervention. They just haven’t actually looked at even their steamed up glasses to recognize that matter is sticky; it evolves at every level of complexity. Real scientists are learning while ID/creationists are sitting on the sidelines carping and spending their money on propaganda instead of research. Ask this RTB fellow why this is the case.

Oclarki · 26 July 2010

So....

One male gazelle is alert enough and quick enough to escape predation for at least one breeding cycle.

Another gazelle in the same herd is half a step slower and so becomes a belly-filler for lions, and consequently quite fails to breed.

How exactly does pornography and sodomy fit in to this?

Dale Lanz · 26 July 2010

Great article. I've wondered recently about how different gene combinations of already existing genetic material might be selectable, under changed enviromental conditions.

Robert Byers · 26 July 2010

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

JGB · 26 July 2010

I appreciate the instinct to want to communicate quickly and efficiently to the public. Over the last couple of years of teaching though, I am somewhat skeptical of the value in emphasizing that as a strategy for educating. There are so many alternate conceptions that need to be properly changed (and the literature really hammers home how time consuming changing those conceptions is) that I think we are potentially kidding ourselves if we think a short 1-2 minute answer is going to have a lasting effect.

That said if your target is from an urban center transportation and road construction might be a useful metaphor for setting the stage to talk about mutation and network effects. The downside is that it leaves out an analogue to selection.

MrG · 26 July 2010

Steve P. said: Why are you stuck on NOT considering information as a real entity? Because it has yet to be empirically substantiated? When has that stopped science from moving forward.

Possibly before it can be substantiated, it should be at least defined. If it isn't, then we would strongly suspect that it is just a popular word being used as bafflegab. So what is your definition of information? How do you define, for example, the information in, say, a computer program? Can we calculate it? If we can't, could we possibly use it for establishing any particular law of nature, like a conservation law? After all, if we can't calculate it, we have no idea how it varies under different conditions. If you can't answer those questions, no need to reply. That would be wasting your time and mine. I don't believe for a second that you can -- you haven't before, you've just complained that calling your bluff is unfair. "Creationist Inforation Theory" -- CIT, pronounced with a VERY soft "C".

MrG · 26 July 2010

As more intelligent people look into this like biblical creationists and I.D ers the whole structure of evolution will come crashing down.

Tell you what, Byers, I'll make you a bet that in five years evolution does come crashing down -- I'll be able to contact major academic institutions and they will admit the idea was wrong. Mind you I am betting that you are RIGHT. I will pay you FIFTY BUCKS if you are right. And if you are wrong, you won't have to pay me anything -- I couldn't get you to pay anyway, but I really WILL pay you. So, if you're that confident, you're really getting a deal here. What say you?

MrG · 26 July 2010

Mike Elzinga said: That is why they claim evolution is impossible without intelligent intervention. They just haven’t actually looked at even their steamed up glasses to recognize that matter is sticky; it evolves at every level of complexity.

As has been pointed out, if we picked up a rock, would we assume that it was created at the beginning of the world in its present form? Everything from rocks to landscapes to planets to stars to galaxies to the Universe itself evolves in their own ways -- their past forms are not the same as their present forms and their future forms will not be the same either. One could claim that the Universe does reflect Design -- I shrug, maybe it does, can't prove otherwise and no reason to try. But if so, on what basis is the evolution of organisms ruled out as part of the Design, when all else evolves?

Vince · 26 July 2010

I teach my students that it's all about a Networks of Networks. The result is an emergent system with redundancy, resiliency, and "evolveability".

DS · 26 July 2010

Steve P. said: DS, Your comments are strictly an appeal to authority. Your idea is dangerously similar to the argument for religious authority claimed hundreds of years ago by theologians. It seems you simply want to trade a papal hat for a lab coat. If TMS is so hard to understand, how do you expect it to gain any traction in the public arena? There seem to be so many exceptions to the rule that the rule should be revisited. Well, how about imbedded information responds to environmental fluctuation? Nah, didn't think that would go over well. Too creationistic. Anyway, I will keep a watch out for the new rule.
Steve, I think you missed the point. The point is not that anyone should believe the experts blindly. The point is not that evidence is hidden or mysterious. The point is simply that if you are not familiar with the evidence then you do not have the right to an opinion. The point is that if you refuse to look at the evidence, you cannot claim that the experts are wrong. The point is that if you are not qualified to look at the evidence, you cannot claim that your views are superior to those who are qualified to look at the evidence. The point is that if you cannot or will not look at the evidence, that you should defer to the experts. Unless of course you think that science is all one big conspiracy against you. Science is not religion. We don't use secret texts that others are prohibited from reading. We don't require any special type of robe or uniform. All we require is evidence. All that is required is willingness and the ability to look at evidence and test hypotheses. No one is excluded from this process. There is no special club or membership, there is no fee or offering plate. Speaking of which, do you have any evidence for your so called hypothesis? Do you have any evidence of "embedded information"? Do you know who "embedded" it? Do you know how they did this? Do you know why they did this" DIdn't think so.

MrG · 26 July 2010

Steve P. said: Your comments are strictly an appeal to authority.

Everytime a lunatic fringer says that, I get the feeling it's an apology for incompetence: "The experts don't know nuthin', and we're as good as they are."

Scott F · 26 July 2010

Robert Byers said: PZ Myers is just admitting that mutation plus selection plus time doesn't after all explain complex biology. AMEN. Thats what we've been trying to say.

Dear Mr. Byers, You seem to have misread (or failed to read) the original post. Mr. Myers is saying exactly the opposite of what you claim he is saying. Mr. Myers is saying that mutation plus selection plus time does explain complex biology. What he is adding is that the effects are more subtle and indirect than a simple reading of that statement might suggest. It's similar to the difference between Newtonian and quantum physics. Newton wasn't "wrong". He just wasn't as complete as we now know he could have been. As we have been over that last several hundred years filling in the "gaps" in Newton's physics (gaps that he himself saw), so too over the last several hundred years we have been filling in the gaps in Darwin's original theory (gaps that he himself saw).

Tulse · 26 July 2010

Steve P. said: If TMS is so hard to understand, how do you expect it to gain any traction in the public arena?

If the internal combustion engine is so hard to understand, how do you expect it to gain any traction in the public arena? If computers are so hard to understand, how do you expect them to gain any traction...? If brain surgery is so hard to understand, how do you expect....? If airplanes are so hard to understand....? If mutual funds...? The Internet...? Antibiotics...? Let's be very clear -- the only reason "the public" has any problem with evolution is because it goes against popular religious beliefs, unlike all the other science and technology above that people are quite happy to let experts produce for them. And science has no obligation, or even capability, of making things "easy to understand" -- its job is figuring out how the universe actually works. Sometimes that's complicated.

DS · 26 July 2010

Steve P. said: Your comments are strictly an appeal to authority.

RIght. And your comments are strictly an appeal to ignorance and incompetence. Steve and Robert are classic examples of those who refuse to look at evidence and still claim they know more than anyone else. They can fuss and fume all they want to, but until they prove that they are willing to look at the evidence, no one is going to take them seriously.

SWT · 26 July 2010

Tulse said:
Steve P. said: If TMS is so hard to understand, how do you expect it to gain any traction in the public arena?
If the internal combustion engine is so hard to understand, how do you expect it to gain any traction in the public arena? If computers are so hard to understand, how do you expect them to gain any traction...? If brain surgery is so hard to understand, how do you expect....? If airplanes are so hard to understand....? If mutual funds...? The Internet...? Antibiotics...? Let's be very clear -- the only reason "the public" has any problem with evolution is because it goes against popular religious beliefs, unlike all the other science and technology above that people are quite happy to let experts produce for them. And science has no obligation, or even capability, of making things "easy to understand" -- its job is figuring out how the universe actually works. Sometimes that's complicated.

I agree with most of what you've said here. Steve P.'s post is based on two assumptions: (1) that "getting traction in the public arena" is relevant to the validity of a scientific explanation and (2) that valid explanations should be simple and easy to understand. Neither of these is accurate, of course. I do however, think the paragraph I've bolded is too simplistic, because there are plenty of public attacks on areas of science other than evolutionary biology. While it is certainly true that most (but by no means all) evolution deniers take this position because it conflicts with a religious belief they have, I don't think this is true of science denialism in general. I don't see any particular religious viewpoint underlying, for example, the anti-vax/"toxins" crap or homeopathy -- the people appear to be simply cranks, quacks, crackpots, and charlatans. AGW denialism appears to be driven by manipulation for short- to mid-term financial gain, with, in some cases, a fair amount of crankery, etc. as well. I think part of the reason these pseudo-scientific beliefs get "traction in the public arena" is that their key points can be laid out in a few bullet points that sound "reasonable" to some people; these bullet points take a lot of time to refute, leading to a perception that a mainstream scientist has to work really hard to "refudiate" a point.

eric · 26 July 2010

Steve P. said: [Information-as-physical-force-or-substance is] Worth a look IMO.

If it's worth a look in your opinion, YOU find the funding and do the research. No one's going to stop you.

Why are you stuck on NOT considering information as a real entity? Because it has yet to be empirically substantiated?

That's probably partly it. And, probably, there are other research avenues he thinks will be more fruitful. No scientist is obligated to research and test your pet hypothesis. If you want it tested, you're going to have to do some of the work yourself. That means defining what this "information" is, laying out what sort of experiment one would have to do to test your idea, predicting how the results would differ depending on whether your hypothesis is right or wrong, and giving us at least a notional argument about why such an experiment is be worth doing, i.e., what's the payoff if you're right? If you can't do at least these things, its unlikely anyone will be interested. We have better things to do with our time than chase down every layman's vague and badly formulated idea. Because until you do the things I've listed above, that's what it is - a vague and badly forumulated idea.

Rather, it seems it is such intuitions that in fact DRIVE scientific inquiry.

By all means, let it drive your inquiry. Get out of that armchair, and show us by example how taking your advice leads to better quarterbacking.

Tulse · 26 July 2010

SWT said: I do however, think the paragraph I've bolded is too simplistic, because there are plenty of public attacks on areas of science other than evolutionary biology.

You are absolutely correct that there are other domains of science that are attacked for non-religious reasons -- my comments were restricted to the opposition to evolution, which as far as I can see is wholly due to religious commitments.

Mike Elzinga · 26 July 2010

I see that Ken Ham is blowing his usual gasket over evolution by carping about the National Museum of Natural History.

This is where our trolls get their understanding of science; from a charlatan fomenting the culture wars while building an empire bamboozling fundamentalists and selling home schooling materials to the very people he fills with paranoia and hatred.

JGB · 26 July 2010

I wonder if Ham or Todd Wood has properly read Louis Agassiz. I don't think he would have approved of their heretical notion of kinds and baramins (aka we will refute evolution as true by assuming it actually happens). He was so dedicated to the notion of types that he very much doubted that dogs only had one common ancestor. I just read the Dover reprint of his Essay on Classification. Some interesting nuggets from the last actual attempt of an actually scientific creationism. Overall not that exciting, except for its account of another mutually contradictory creationist theory.

SWT · 26 July 2010

Tulse said:
SWT said: I do however, think the paragraph I've bolded is too simplistic, because there are plenty of public attacks on areas of science other than evolutionary biology.
You are absolutely correct that there are other domains of science that are attacked for non-religious reasons -- my comments were restricted to the opposition to evolution, which as far as I can see is wholly due to religious commitments.

Surprisingly, a 2008 Pew study found that only 87% of self-identified atheists and 87% of self-identified agnostics agreed that "evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life".

Tulse · 26 July 2010

SWT said:
Tulse said:
SWT said: I do however, think the paragraph I've bolded is too simplistic, because there are plenty of public attacks on areas of science other than evolutionary biology.
You are absolutely correct that there are other domains of science that are attacked for non-religious reasons -- my comments were restricted to the opposition to evolution, which as far as I can see is wholly due to religious commitments.
Surprisingly, a 2008 Pew study found that only 87% of self-identified atheists and 87% of self-identified agnostics agreed that "evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life".

OK, so I amend my comment to "the overwhelmingly dominant reason 'the public' has any problem with evolution is because it goes against popular religious beliefs".

Ray Martinez · 26 July 2010

The main complaint of Myers is that evolution is being overly simplified---to the point of error.

He makes this point in reference to evolutionist and creationist alike.

Then Myers launches into a very long and complicated explanation of how evolution proceeds. This is why evolution is overly simplified in the first place.

MrG · 26 July 2010

JGB said: I wonder if Ham or Todd Wood has properly read Louis Agassiz.

Y'know, I was just poking around on Wood's blog and he really surprises me. First, citing John Whitcomb to suggest that when debating nonbelievers, scripture is useless -- I would compare to talking to them in Chinese -- and then metioning "genetic information (whatever that is)." I am simply baffled at the notion that a person who thinks in such a way can possibly survive indefinitely on the creationist side of the fence. Next, he'll be citing Hume.

Shebardigan · 26 July 2010

Tulse said: If the internal combustion engine is so hard to understand, how do you expect it to gain any traction in the public arena?

This is apposite to the OP's contention. For the general public, the "Suck, Squeeze, POP!, Phooey" model of the four-cycle internal combustion engine is as far as most people get. And, as far as it goes, it is as satisfactory as the "RM + NS" schema in Biology. Would that things were that simple. Just the mathematics alone of the horrifying stuff that happens during throttle-transient events in large-manifold IC engines has kept many a senior engineer fully occupied. Not to mention the tens of thousands of lines of code that have been developed to cope therewith. Now, if the ID folks could ever begin to learn the difference between "information" and "instructions", and realize the implications of that difference...

henry · 27 July 2010

Mike Elzinga said: I see that Ken Ham is blowing his usual gasket over evolution by carping about the National Museum of Natural History. This is where our trolls get their understanding of science; from a charlatan fomenting the culture wars while building an empire bamboozling fundamentalists and selling home schooling materials to the very people he fills with paranoia and hatred.

Why should taxpayer money be involved? If people want an evolution based museum, let the market decide. If people want a creation based museum, let the market decide. It seems that there isn't demand for an evolution based museum so it has to be taxpayer funded.

harold · 27 July 2010

Ray Martinez, Steve P, Martin C and any other creationists -

Then Myers launches into a very long and complicated explanation of how evolution proceeds. This is why evolution is overly simplified in the first place.

There is nothing long or complicated about what PZ Myers has written. It is a terse, fairly accurate, not even totally complete summary of major mechanisms of biological evolution. It is quite understandable to anyone with knowledge of the basics. It is a bit hard for people without any biomedical background, probably, because some understanding of genetics helps. Still, I think any honest, intelligent person can gain from reading it. You desperately wish that the theory of evolution were something resembling the straw men you create. It isn't. Your social/political/"religious" movement is bizarre and post-modern. It literally relies on maintaining a level of brainwash so intense that you can contradict what is right in front of your faces.

Dale Husband · 27 July 2010

henry said:
Mike Elzinga said: I see that Ken Ham is blowing his usual gasket over evolution by carping about the National Museum of Natural History. This is where our trolls get their understanding of science; from a charlatan fomenting the culture wars while building an empire bamboozling fundamentalists and selling home schooling materials to the very people he fills with paranoia and hatred.
Why should taxpayer money be involved? If people want an evolution based museum, let the market decide. If people want a creation based museum, let the market decide. It seems that there isn't demand for an evolution based museum so it has to be taxpayer funded.

What are you, a Libertarian Creationist? Or just stupid? Oh, wait.....

harold · 27 July 2010

Henry -

I believe in some government funding for scientific education of the general public, but at least we agree on the more important priority, that creationist museums shouldn't be publicly funded.

As for the contention that there are no mainstream science museums that receive mainly private funding, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Museum_of_Natural_History

Frank J · 27 July 2010

Your social/political/”religious” movement is bizarre and post-modern. It literally relies on maintaining a level of brainwash so intense that you can contradict what is right in front of your faces.
— harold

Yet I can't help thinking that it's more that just that - and none of it good in any way. It may be just a result of the post-modern component, but there's something very suspicious about how they can make excuses for their own internal differences (Steve P. accepts old life & common descent, Ray accepts neither but does accept an old earth, FL doesn't even accept that) and unite against the "evil" of "Darwinism."

harold · 27 July 2010

Frank J -

At this point, either "ID" or "creationism" borders on being a euphemism.

Operationally, it's now just evolution denial.

All positive claims have been stripped away and all the up to date adherents know better than to make any testable claim that any deity did any specific thing at any time. There is actually virtually no reference to any act of "creation" or "intelligent design" whatsoever - just a lot of dishonest arguments against "Darwinism".

In theory, some sort of evolution denial might exist that they might be leery of including in their tent, but in practice, I'm not aware of any.

"Say anything to deny the theory of evolution and agree with anyone who says anything to deny the theory of evolution" is the current observable behavior.

Now, if I were to conjecture as to why this behavior exists, I would, as you already know, conjecture that, in the post-civil rights milieu, Biblical literalism was recruited as a "moral" justification for harsh political ideals, but that at the same time, biomedical science was exploding, leading to the frenzied "creation science" of the sixties and seventies - a panicky reaction to the dawn of molecular genetics, among other things (which drew on older, mainly theology-inspired traditions). However, "creation science" lost in court, leading to a reflexive emotional obsession with "denying evolution" by any means possible, largely as a way of denying the defeat. As I've noted before, the contemporary language of evolution denial is all about obfuscation and plausible deniability.

But while conjecture is conjecture, observable behavior is observable.

Ray Martinez · 27 July 2010

harold said: Ray Martinez, Steve P, Martin C and any other creationists -
Then Myers launches into a very long and complicated explanation of how evolution proceeds. This is why evolution is overly simplified in the first place.
There is nothing long or complicated about what PZ Myers has written. It is a terse, fairly accurate, not even totally complete summary of major mechanisms of biological evolution. It is quite understandable to anyone with knowledge of the basics. It is a bit hard for people without any biomedical background, probably, because some understanding of genetics helps. Still, I think any honest, intelligent person can gain from reading it. You desperately wish that the theory of evolution were something resembling the straw men you create. It isn't. Your social/political/"religious" movement is bizarre and post-modern. It literally relies on maintaining a level of brainwash so intense that you can contradict what is right in front of your faces.

I completely agree that one party (Creationists or Darwinists) are utterly deluded (brainwashed); unable to see what is right in front of their faces. Concerning my original point (which you botched and/or evaded): it stands. Myers complained that evolution was being overly simplified to the point of error. His long and complicated elucidation is why. When one remembers that just about every evolutionist has their own long and complicated elucidation, the over simplification renditions are here to stay. All Myers said is that "evolution-did-it." Creationism-ID says "Creator-did-it." If you're an Atheist you have no choice but to accept evolution.

Frank J · 27 July 2010

I completely agree that one party (Creationists or Darwinists) are utterly deluded (brainwashed); unable to see what is right in front of their faces. (snip what you can read above) All Myers said is that “evolution-did-it.” Creationism-ID says “Creator-did-it.”
— Ray Martinez

Ray, if you must use the tired old false dichotomy wrapped in a bait-and-switch, at least try to be less obvious about it. Especially since you don't really mean it, as evidenced by your past admissions that Fundamentalists and "DI-IDers" are in our camp, not yours. At best you have conceded that there are at least 3 parties: "real" creationists (you and very few others), "Darwinists" and the others. As for "whodunit," as you know and sometimes admit, many "Darwinists" are even more up front than the DI in saying that "Goddidit." But the questions for science are not "whodunit" but "what happened when and how?" Questions that "Darwinists" actively seek to answer, admit error when they're wrong, and disagee publicly on the slightest scientific differences. If they have theological differences, they debate them openly too, and they usually have nothing to do with their scientific differences. It's exactly the opposite in your anti-science world.

Oclarki · 27 July 2010

Ray Martinez said: If you're an Atheist you have no choice but to accept evolution.

Sorry, but that claim is not accurate. An atheist could most certainly believe that the observed spatial and temporal distribution of life on Earth was directly cause by Martians...or Romulans....or even little white mice. Or that atheist could simly claim that we do not yet have an explanation for that observed distribution. There is no requirement that atheists must accept the theories of evolution in order to rationalize their opposition to the existence of deities. Indeed, there is no requirement that anyone must accept those theories. At least, the principles and methodologies of science include no such requirement.

MrG · 27 July 2010

Oh, now you done it ... you fed da troll.

Oclarki · 27 July 2010

MrG said: Oh, now you done it ... you fed da troll.

Oops....sorry....I really didn't mean to... but I am kind of new around here (although not exactly new to the issue) so I have not yet learned much about the various characters who inhabit this particular world, especially the...um...."denialist" faction(s). I suppose that it is just that I cannot resist the...um...temptation...to challenge the assertations of apparent evolution deniers. Who knows...maybe one day they will be able to provide substantive, credible data that supports an alternative explanation, but in the ~40 years of my scientific experience they have yet to do so.

henry · 28 July 2010

harold said: Henry - I believe in some government funding for scientific education of the general public, but at least we agree on the more important priority, that creationist museums shouldn't be publicly funded. As for the contention that there are no mainstream science museums that receive mainly private funding, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Museum_of_Natural_History

Since there is private funding already for evolution, why should there be taxpayer funding museums for evolution?

Dave Luckett · 28 July 2010

For the same reason that there is funding for science, ignoramus. The theory of evolution is science. Science is what drives technology, and the public benefits from it. Creationism, on the other hand, is a regression to the dark ages, and the public would suffer from it.

Dale Husband · 28 July 2010

Ray Martinez said:
harold said: Ray Martinez, Steve P, Martin C and any other creationists -
Then Myers launches into a very long and complicated explanation of how evolution proceeds. This is why evolution is overly simplified in the first place.
There is nothing long or complicated about what PZ Myers has written. It is a terse, fairly accurate, not even totally complete summary of major mechanisms of biological evolution. It is quite understandable to anyone with knowledge of the basics. It is a bit hard for people without any biomedical background, probably, because some understanding of genetics helps. Still, I think any honest, intelligent person can gain from reading it. You desperately wish that the theory of evolution were something resembling the straw men you create. It isn't. Your social/political/"religious" movement is bizarre and post-modern. It literally relies on maintaining a level of brainwash so intense that you can contradict what is right in front of your faces.
I completely agree that one party (Creationists or Darwinists) are utterly deluded (brainwashed); unable to see what is right in front of their faces. Concerning my original point (which you botched and/or evaded): it stands. Myers complained that evolution was being overly simplified to the point of error. His long and complicated elucidation is why. When one remembers that just about every evolutionist has their own long and complicated elucidation, the over simplification renditions are here to stay. All Myers said is that "evolution-did-it." Creationism-ID says "Creator-did-it." If you're an Atheist you have no choice but to accept evolution.

If the only reason you oppose evolution is because of your faith in God, then that faith is truly worthless. And by implication, so are you.

Stanton · 28 July 2010

Dale Husband said:
Ray Martinez said:
harold said: Ray Martinez, Steve P, Martin C and any other creationists -
Then Myers launches into a very long and complicated explanation of how evolution proceeds. This is why evolution is overly simplified in the first place.
There is nothing long or complicated about what PZ Myers has written. It is a terse, fairly accurate, not even totally complete summary of major mechanisms of biological evolution. It is quite understandable to anyone with knowledge of the basics. It is a bit hard for people without any biomedical background, probably, because some understanding of genetics helps. Still, I think any honest, intelligent person can gain from reading it. You desperately wish that the theory of evolution were something resembling the straw men you create. It isn't. Your social/political/"religious" movement is bizarre and post-modern. It literally relies on maintaining a level of brainwash so intense that you can contradict what is right in front of your faces.
I completely agree that one party (Creationists or Darwinists) are utterly deluded (brainwashed); unable to see what is right in front of their faces. Concerning my original point (which you botched and/or evaded): it stands. Myers complained that evolution was being overly simplified to the point of error. His long and complicated elucidation is why. When one remembers that just about every evolutionist has their own long and complicated elucidation, the over simplification renditions are here to stay. All Myers said is that "evolution-did-it." Creationism-ID says "Creator-did-it." If you're an Atheist you have no choice but to accept evolution.
If the only reason you oppose evolution is because of your faith in God, then that faith is truly worthless. And by implication, so are you.

Don't forget that Ray Martinez also uses his faith in God and disbelief in evolution to fuel his bigotries, too, by claiming that those Christians who do accept evolution are actually evil, devil-worshiping atheists, and that atheists/non-Christians are not truly human.

DS · 28 July 2010

Ray Martinez said: All Myers said is that "evolution-did-it." Creationism-ID says "Creator-did-it." If you're an Atheist you have no choice but to accept evolution.

Bullpuckey. Meyer went into detail about mutation, selection, populations, gene networks and flexible genes. There is a vast scientific literature which contain evidence for everything that was discussed. But you did get one thing right, creationism and ID are rightly lumped together and neither one makes anything more than the vague unsubstantiated claim that somebody, somewhere did something, sometime for some reason. As for atheists having to accept evolution, why would the most skeptical people in the world accept anything based on anything other than the evidence? Maybe they are just more able to accept evolution because they are not encumbered with so many preconceptions and blind spots. The fact is that everyone who is not convinced by the evidence is perfectly free to reject evolution. They won't even be threatened by hellfire! Those who are unfamiliar with the evidence, or simply refuse to look at the evidence, are not entitled to an opinion on the matter. They can still have one, but no one will care.

MrG · 28 July 2010

Oclarki said: I suppose that it is just that I cannot resist the...um...temptation...to challenge the assertations of apparent evolution deniers.

The issue is that you challenged THAT particular evolution-denier. That one gets banned from ANTI-EVOLUTION forums.

Kevin · 28 July 2010

Sorry, I'm a bit late to the party here, but have a question for any experts still reading the thread. Would this indicate that if Dr. Lenski were to blend 4 or 5 of his different lines of non-Citrate-metabolizing bacteria, thus creating a population with a greatly increased allelic variety, then he would expect the ability to metabolize citrate to evolve faster than it was able to otherwise? Or does the asexual reproductive nature of e. coli preclude the effect?

Ray Martinez · 28 July 2010

Oclarki said:
Ray Martinez said: If you're an Atheist you have no choice but to accept evolution.
Sorry, but that claim is not accurate. An atheist could most certainly believe that the observed spatial and temporal distribution of life on Earth was directly cause by Martians...or Romulans....or even little white mice. Or that atheist could simly claim that we do not yet have an explanation for that observed distribution. There is no requirement that atheists must accept the theories of evolution in order to rationalize their opposition to the existence of deities. Indeed, there is no requirement that anyone must accept those theories. At least, the principles and methodologies of science include no such requirement.

Despite the long-winded evasion seen above, since no God exists Atheists have no choice but to believe that species generate species (= evolution).

Ray Martinez · 28 July 2010

DS said:
Ray Martinez said: All Myers said is that "evolution-did-it." Creationism-ID says "Creator-did-it." If you're an Atheist you have no choice but to accept evolution.
Bullpuckey. Meyer went into detail about mutation, selection, populations, gene networks and flexible genes. There is a vast scientific literature which contain evidence for everything that was discussed.

I never denied that Myer presented a long and complicated elucidation. My point was that these elucidations give birth and health to the over-simplifications that Myer complained about.

But you did get one thing right, creationism and ID are rightly lumped together and neither one makes anything more than the vague unsubstantiated claim that somebody, somewhere did something, sometime for some reason. As for atheists having to accept evolution, why would the most skeptical people in the world accept anything based on anything other than the evidence? Maybe they are just more able to accept evolution because they are not encumbered with so many preconceptions and blind spots. The fact is that everyone who is not convinced by the evidence is perfectly free to reject evolution. They won't even be threatened by hellfire! Those who are unfamiliar with the evidence, or simply refuse to look at the evidence, are not entitled to an opinion on the matter. They can still have one, but no one will care.

Again, since no God exists Atheists have no choice but to accept evolution.

MrG · 28 July 2010

Oh gosh, it's evening, feeding time for the troll.

Oclarki · 28 July 2010

Ray Martinez said: Despite the long-winded evasion seen above, since no God exists Atheists have no choice but to believe that species generate species (= evolution).

Since reading comprehension seems to be an issue here, I will be short. Your claim lacks logical support.

MrG · 28 July 2010

Oclarki said: Your claim lacks logical support.

Well DUH. This is Ray Martinez. RAY! MARTINEZ! Google him, he's very well known. Conversations with him are similar to working with a PC that has a system error suggesting it is going to crash at any moment.

Ray Martinez · 28 July 2010

Oclarki said:
Ray Martinez said: Despite the long-winded evasion seen above, since no God exists Atheists have no choice but to believe that species generate species (= evolution).
Since reading comprehension seems to be an issue here, I will be short. Your claim lacks logical support.

It is perfectly logical. Since no God exists, what other choice does the Atheist have but to believe that nature "created" itself? You don't like the fact because it makes "Christian" evolutionists look like buffoons.

MrG · 28 July 2010

On googling the name, add "creationist" to the search term -- it's a common name.

Oclarki · 28 July 2010

Ray Martinez said: It is perfectly logical. Since no God exists, what other choice does the Atheist have but to believe that nature "created" itself? You don't like the fact because it makes "Christian" evolutionists look like buffoons.

Christians who accept the theories of evolution as the best, most robust explanation for the temporal and spatial distribution of life on earth look pretty reasonable to me. Far, far more reasonable that those who reject those theories, ridicule those that accept them, and yet have a very, very difficult time coming up with anything even remotely as compelling. Oops...I guess I am being long-winded again. Oh, well. Deal with it. As for those athiests of yours, they could also believe that aliens created life on earth.

Oclarki · 28 July 2010

MrG said: On googling the name, add "creationist" to the search term -- it's a common name.

No need...I see what you mean. Oh, well. I do apologize for the feeding.

MrG · 28 July 2010

Oclarki said: Oh, well. Deal with it.

If you really think you have good reason to try to hold a conversation with a rambling paranoid schizophrenic, have at it.

tresmal · 28 July 2010

Kevin said: Sorry, I'm a bit late to the party here, but have a question for any experts still reading the thread. Would this indicate that if Dr. Lenski were to blend 4 or 5 of his different lines of non-Citrate-metabolizing bacteria, thus creating a population with a greatly increased allelic variety, then he would expect the ability to metabolize citrate to evolve faster than it was able to otherwise? Or does the asexual reproductive nature of e. coli preclude the effect?

Actually prokaryotes do exchange genetic material. My hunch is that this would result in citrate metabolism evolving faster in a more diverse starting population.

Oclarki · 28 July 2010

MrG said: If you really think you have good reason to try to hold a conversation with a rambling paranoid schizophrenic, have at it.

I am not sure that this is actually a good reason, but I am all for giving creationists every opportunity to provide a substantive, credible alternative explanation to the theories of evolution. Heck..I would settle for a substantive, testable alternative explanation for the temporal and spatial distribution of life as expressed in the fossil record. But then again, I am a geologist and so am perhaps a bit too narrow in my demands for most creationists. The trouble is, in 30+ years of being open-minded, I have yet to encounter a convincing alternative explanation. I am about ready to give up, but in a way I cannot help but maintain a certain amount of openness to credible alternative explanations. But the key word is credible.

Dale Husband · 29 July 2010

Ray Martinez said:
Oclarki said:
Ray Martinez said: Despite the long-winded evasion seen above, since no God exists Atheists have no choice but to believe that species generate species (= evolution).
Since reading comprehension seems to be an issue here, I will be short. Your claim lacks logical support.
It is perfectly logical. Since no God exists, what other choice does the Atheist have but to believe that nature "created" itself? You don't like the fact because it makes "Christian" evolutionists look like buffoons.

The idea that nature "created" itself has nothing to do with evolution. You are thinking of the Big Bang. Humans and other species on Earth could have been planted by some alien intelligence, not evolved. Evolution does not prove atheism, not does atheism require evolution. There are plenty of reasons to deny God that have nothing to do with evolution.