• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Explaining Macroevolution to a creationist

arg-fallbackName="Greg the Grouper"/>
Greetings.


No, you're not.

Organisms tend to evolve their own energy storage system. If a given organism manages to hack into another's energy source - as in parasitism - then there's little point in having it's own. Over generations, the parasitic species loses its own energy system.

Hence why evolution can result in simpler biological systems.

Does this make sense?

Kindest regards,

James
Okay, so it is actually just environmental factors rendering previously evolved systems as obsolete, so to speak?
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
The definition of life is indeed fuzzy though is generally given to be biological
But what is the absolute minimum requirement for life under this classification
Where is the dividing line between non life and life - is this even a legitimate question


Whatever characteristics we use today to define life evolved. It's not likely they all evolved at the same instant, therefore there was a progression of events that led to the kind of thing we define as life. As usual, the difficulty isn't in nature, but in our discontinuous minds.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
You say that it's possible to evolve greater simplicity, but from my understanding, this would be akin to climbing down into a valley of Mount Improbable. Is this just a simple matter of an organism finding itself in an environment where a given complex/complicated system isn't really beneficial, and as such, it can progressively lose functionality without negative repercussions? Am I just missing, or misunderstanding something?

I think one of the tricky things here is the notion of simplicity. It really needs to be rigorously defined before we can try and solve such questions.

Does simplicity equate to less working parts? Or does it just mean something further back the evolutionary tree?

But to answer your question - think about it from an engineering point of view. If we both make a machine that outputs the same amount of power, but mine uses twice as much material as yours, then your machine is 'simpler' (from the first definition). It's the 5th wheel idea.

Evolution routinely does this - tweaks efficiency, removes parts that no longer present sufficient advantage to be positively selected by the environment.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Okay, so it is actually just environmental factors rendering previously evolved systems as obsolete, so to speak?

Not really. Even with a uniform environment, reproductive advantages can still be discovered - for example, a slightly more efficient ability to process nutrients could become spread through the population.
 
arg-fallbackName="Greg the Grouper"/>
I think one of the tricky things here is the notion of simplicity. It really needs to be rigorously defined before we can try and solve such questions.

Does simplicity equate to less working parts? Or does it just mean something further back the evolutionary tree?

But to answer your question - think about it from an engineering point of view. If we both make a machine that outputs the same amount of power, but mine uses twice as much material as yours, then your machine is 'simpler' (from the first definition). It's the 5th wheel idea.

Evolution routinely does this - tweaks efficiency, removes parts that no longer present sufficient advantage to be positively selected by the environment.
For clarity in future conversation, I would say that simplicity is accomplishing [X] goal with less parts, though I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be able to manifest in some instances as a sort of reverting process at the cost of some functionality.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
For clarity in future conversation, I would say that simplicity is accomplishing [X] goal with less parts, though I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be able to manifest in some instances as a sort of reverting process at the cost of some functionality.

In that case, evolution frequently produces greater simplicity - perhaps the most notorious area for this is as I mentioned, with respect to the consumption and processing of nutrients.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Okay, so the environment itself dictates the topography of our Mount Improbable?

And this would mean that, as the environment changes, naturally the topography of our Mount Improbable would change. Hence, it becomes possible for peaks to become valleys, and for valleys to become peaks?
Yes!

I'd meant to deal with this point better, and I failed, so let me make it up with an oblique exposition, just because I love the dramatic reveal.

Imagine an population of organisms living in some environment. All is good, but a genetic mutation appears in the population with some weighting. It doesn't seem to be much of a problem, except when we have two members of the population who carry the same mutation copulate and produce offspring, which leads to a serious cellular disease in the progeny in early adulthood and beyond and is often fatal, because this mutation causes some of their cells to end up with a shape slightly different from other cells like it.

However, there are some features of the aetiology of this particular genetic disorder that elucidate some interesting things for our purposes.

First, because it manifests in the early adulthood, i.e., after the beginning of reproductive age of the organism in question, it's not strongly selected against. Second, in some environments, having even a single copy of this gene gives some advantage.

So, a mutation that's mildly deleterious in one environment and actually advantageous in another. Does that feel like it meets the criteria for the challenge of turning the peaks into troughs?

I just described the sickle gene in humans.
And this shifting topography could facilitate an organism evolving a simpler structure?
Yes, and this is documented.

To continue with the video's example, perhaps [X] event drastically increases ambient light in a given environment, and this facilitates the possibility for organisms in said environment to evolve such that the depression which houses the eye becomes progressively smaller? Or something like that...
Yes, because the single principle that drives everything is entropy, which necessarily entails economy. If it's energetically favourable for a fish in a cave, for example, to no longer invest in the energy to produce ocular structure, it's selected against.

I don't know if people grok the importance of economy in all physical processes. This simple notion is the answer to all the physics-founded objections to evolution by creationists. Economy is everything.
I suppose environments are typically complex enough that the idea of a 'highest peak' on our Mount Improbable is just kind of ridiculous?
The highest peak is a local notion, rooted in what works in a given environment. In some environments, sure-footedness is key, but we can't all be alpine goats.
EDIT: 'Highest peak' here referring to a specific evolutionary pattern more suited to a given environment than any other evolutionary pattern.
I don't even think 'more suited' works in this sense. remember always that the organisms one is competing with in any given environment is primarily (all but a negligent percentage) and most obviously with members of one's own species.

The metric is this: did it survive.

Not 'can it survive', 'did it'. Seriously.

If you look into the technical details of evolutionary theory, you find things like 'fitness coefficients'. 'Ah,' you think, 'survival of the fittest', but you already missed the sign, because of what fitness is. It's a number. In particular, it's a measurement of performance against expected number of offspring.

The problem is, of course, that we're extremely egocentric, and we have vernacular notions of fitness that are so far removed from the terms of art as to render any statement meaningless, hence my aeons of frustration at the phrase 'survival of the fittest' which, properly rendered into the vernacular, would be 'survival of the sufficiently fit, on average'.

When you understand fitness as the output of the question 'did it survive?', it all becomes obvious.

No idea what I just said, but I've been typing for a minute or two, so this seems a good place to hit the button.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
For clarity in future conversation, I would say that simplicity is accomplishing [X] goal with less parts, though I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be able to manifest in some instances as a sort of reverting process at the cost of some functionality.
If I may, I offered some thoughts on this. I haven't read it in a while, so my thoughts may have evolved somewhat, but my position on placing complexity and simplicity on the same spectrum have not. This is a mistake.

It may, of course, be a semantic thing, but that doesn't make it trivial, because the subtle differences in definition here can manifest in enormous differences. I've stayed, as always, within the confines of how the terms are broadly used in the physics literature.

But No Simpler!
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

Okay, so it is actually just environmental factors rendering previously evolved systems as obsolete, so to speak?
As Spar notes, not quite.

To give an example, sharks and crocodiles don't appear to have changed over the past 400 million years but, internally, they've evolved more efficient biochemical processes.

A recent branch of science is bio-thermodynamics.

If you think of a organism as a energy system itself, the more effective/efficient it is for a given environment, the more successful it will be. Should the environment change, over many generations, the species will change - its bio-thermodynamic effectiveness will change (evolve). However, even in the case where the environment hasn't substantially changed, there's still room for the species to improve its bio-thermodynamic efficiency (evolution still occurs).

As Hack noted, economy is everything - and the economical use of energy in and for biological systems determines whether one survives or not. Any form of evolution, no matter how small, that improves survival is critical, and will evolve.

Kindest regards,

James
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
To give an example, sharks and crocodiles don't appear to have changed over the past 400 million years but, internally, they've evolved more efficient biochemical processes.

This is an important point to note. When you hear that species are 'living fossils' or 'relatively unchanged' for millions of years - it's talking about their superficial size, shape, and anatomical dimensions - we wouldn't know how much their internal organs and physiology has changed as they aren't retained in the fossilization process.
 
arg-fallbackName="surreptitious75"/>
Why cannot simplicity and complexity occupy the same spectrum
What is the distinction between complex and complicated in relation to evolution
Are these differences exclusive to biology or are they also found in other sciences
 
arg-fallbackName="surreptitious75"/>
I only saw the link after I posted so my bad

But I do not think that the example of the pendulum displaying complex behaviour is a very good example
Because the behaviour in question is entirely predictable and so will be exactly the same every single time
It appears complex given the number of parts it has but can anything predictable be complex in principle
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
But I do not think that the example of the pendulum displaying complex behaviour is a very good example
No, it's a perfect example, because of what it's demonstrating, namely that simplicity and complexity aren#'t on the same spectrum, because that's about as simple as a system gets, yet it displays complex behaviour.
Because the behaviour in question is entirely predictable and so will be exactly the same every single time
This is exactly wrong. The behaviour is chaotic, which means that even tiny, tiny changes in initial conditions result in radically different outcomes.
It appears complex given the number of parts it has but can anything predictable be complex in principle
No, it IS complex, because its behaviour arises out of the interaction of multiple parts. Again, you're confusing complex and complicated. Complexity is very specifically the behaviour arising out of the interaction of multiple parts. It's emergent, in other words.

We very quickly run into situations in which our predictions fall apart quite quickly, because that's the nature of chaos. Such systems are non-linear, and very rapidly deviate from predictions. it's exactly analogous to the difference between playing pool on a standard table and playing snooker on a full-size table. Tiny errors are magnified over large distances. That's true whether we're talking about distances in time or distances in space. We can make reasonable predictions for a short time after the starting point is chosen, but we can't accurately predict over longer periods.

This is, for example, why we can only predict the weather with any accuracy for a few days in advance before the patterns start deviating quite radically from the models, because the atmosphere is just like that pendulum, except with a fuckton more moving parts, which increases complexity, chaos and unpredictability.
 
arg-fallbackName="AronRa"/>
AronRa said:
Since you STILL didn't answer ANY of my questions, I'll have to repeat them all AGAIN.

Look at this chart again.

View attachment 306

Notice the blue cluster of the most closely-related species with wolves (Canus lupus) and domestic dogs (Canus lupus familiaris). Notice they both have the same first two names. Now, you see that the African painted dog (Lycaon pictus) is also part of that cluster, and visibly would be "just a dog" in the eyes of any child. But these are genetically so far apart from other dogs that they cannot interbreed to produce any living hybrids at all. Do you accept that they are still biologically related?
JohnHeintz said:
The African wild dog probably is related.
We know the wolf and dog are. Seriously, with the dog and wolf it's really just wild vs domestic.
I hope this answers your question
"Probably"? No, that doesn't answer my question. Repeating another question I already asked you: If they are related, there is a way to tell. Do you know how we could do that?

AronRa said:
Now compare the blue clade to the green and red clades. Do you accept that they too are biologically related? That the bush dog (Speothos venaticus) and the raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) and the maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus) are related to other species of wolves and dogs, even though they cannot interbreed?
JohnHeintz said:
Now look again at the cat tree.

View attachment 303

While people have forced several hybrids, none have ever occurred between the clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) and any other species of cat. So, do you accept that all cat species are biologically related, even if they're no longer chemically interfertile?
JohnHeintz said:
Cats are probably related. Again, whether or not they evolved from one common ancestor, I'm not sure. I don't put so much importance on "interbreeding" as earlier stated. In the ring species scenario animals can no longer breed with some populations of the same animal.
"Probably"? Repeating that other question I already asked you: If they are related, there is a way to tell. Do you know how we could do that?

Then you would accept that every SPECIES of deer is biologically related, even if they cannot interbreed anymore?
View attachment 305
Do you accept that all of these evolved from a common ancestor?
JohnHeintz said:
*sound of crickets*

AronRa said:
And you would even accept that all of these, the common ancestor of every Cervid species and the ancestor of all these other species too also descend from a common ancestor at the base of Pecora, if not all of Rumanantia?View attachment 304
JohnHeintz said:
*sound of HAM radio static*

JohnHeintz said:
One never changed into a fundamentally different kind? The theory doesn't teach that ?
NONSENSE Aron. It most certainly teaches that living cells became every other living organism on the planet. Many are fundamentally, completely and absolutely different from each other. Except for the fact that they are all made of cells, DNA and such.
It doesn't teach it happened in one generation. It teaches it happened in small increments over vast amounts of time. But it DOES teach it.
No, it doesn't and never did. As I just told you, there was never any point in evolutionary history where one kind of animal changed into a fundamentally different kind of animal. That is a creationist straw-man. That's why you can't present even one such example. That's also why you have consistently dodged all my questions.
 
arg-fallbackName="JohnHeintz"/>
"Probably"? No, that doesn't answer my question. Repeating another question I already asked you: If they are related, there is a way to tell. Do you know how we could do that?






No, it doesn't and never did. As I just told you, there was never any point in evolutionary history where one kind of animal changed into a fundamentally different kind of animal. That is a creationist straw-man. That's why you can't present even one such example. That's also why you have consistently dodged all my questions.
We don't seem to be communicating very effectively on this "are they related" topic.
How about we move on to something else ?
Maybe you can explain how genetics show how all the life forms are related. Or , I'd prefer , how a group of single cell organisms became a truly multicellular reproductive animal.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

We don't seem to be communicating very effectively on this "are they related" topic.
How about we move on to something else ?
Maybe you can explain how genetics show how all the life forms are related. Or , I'd prefer , how a group of single cell organisms became a truly multicellular reproductive animal.
The reason as to why you're not communicating very well is because, as Aron notes, you keep dodging his questions.

If you know how to tell they're related, say so, and explain it. If not, acknowledge that you don't, and let him explain it to you.

And I provided a link to an article and paper on how single-celled organisms became multicellular organisms in the presence of a predatory micro-organism.

Either you didn't read it, didn't understand it or dismissed it.

Perhaps you should answer Aron's question - and read the article to which I linked - before Aron posts his next reply.

Kindest regards,

James
 
Back
Top