Re: Direction in evolution, from Re: Are there things that don't evolve?

Without getting into a heated debated about the mousetrap analogy -- Bill, I
don't think this answers it, since you're assuming an intelligence that
arranges the parts of the trap to work a certain way. I don't think the
mousetrap analogy is designed to argue that engineered designs never
progress through stages of engineering.

On 4/3/06, Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The mousetrap isn't even a good example of something that could not have
> evolved. Imagine a cave man who comes on an animal which has been killed
> by a
> falling tree. After enjoying a good meal, he realizes that he can arrange
> a
> log to fall on an animal, so he rigs a log with a vine rope and he stands
> ready
> to pull the rope, causing the log to fall on an animal walking under the
> log.
> Eventually he (or someone else) realizes he can use bait to cause the
> animal --
> in the process of trying to get the bait -- to trip the dead fall. Fast
> forward
> a few thousand years and you get a bunch of derived devices: bear traps,
> mouse
> traps, etc. Am I stretching things by saying this is evolution? Maybe, but
> the
> trap has moved from a primitive dead fall to a spring-loaded modern trap
> by a
> number of stages, by trial and error. And all the intermediate stages,
> though
> they are missing some of the features of the modern trap, are functional.
>
> --- Brent Foster <bdffoster@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Irreducible complexity seems to assume purpose and directionality. To
> say
> > that a mousetrap will not function if any of its parts are removed
> assumes
> > that its purpose was catching mice. It will still "function" perfectly
> well
> > as a paper weight. And again, to say that the constituent parts are
> useless
> > by themselves assumes that their purpose is catching mice. If the
> environment
> > doesn't require catching mice, then springs, levers, boards and whatnot
> could
> > be selected for other uses (uses can be mistakenly interpretted as
> purpose).
> > Random recombinations of the parts would result in countless structures
> that
> > appear useless. But when the environment changes to one that favors mice
> > catching, the one that catches mice is selected. Talk about carying an
> > analogy to a ridiculous extreme!
> > Brent
> >
> > ---- David Campbell wrote:
> >
> > =============
> > There's a lot of confusion regarding directionality and randomness
> versus
> > organization in evolution, not merely relating to antievolutionary
> arguments
> > but even within evolutionary biology involving folks as well-known as
> Steve
> > Gould. It may help to distinguish between the question "Are there
> > directions in evolution?" and "Can these be called progress?"
> >
> > First, what is random? It can be used mathematically (things describable
> > probabilistically, such as flipping a coin) or less formally to include
> > things that do not fit that mathematical description but that cannot be
> > humanly predicted in detail (e.g., long-term weather). However, it is
> also
> > used metaphysically to mean unguided or purposeless. Many people have
> tried
> > to claim that scientific evidence of one of the first two implies the
> third,
> > whether they wish to reject purpose or to reject the science. However,
> most
> > religions and even superstitions hold that supernatural influences
> affect or
> > control items in the first two categories. I'm using it hereafter as a
> > physical descriptor for things humanly unpredictable while acknowledging
> > that God is sovereign over what happens.
> >
> > Human perception of randomness is inaccurate. Random things are actually
> > less simple than organized things. For example, it is very easy to make
> a
> > short description of the following numeric sequence:
> > 0101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
> >
> > can be described as "repeat 01 over and over"
> > However, the following sequence is most easily described by quoting it:
> > 78457841656128561765432657643721654578431587438156842613587436
> >
> > Thus, in evolution, it would be very orderly to have the planet entirely
> > populated by clones of a single type of organism. In fact, there is much
> > more variation in the DNA and in the organisms-much more random. The
> > construction of an organism from raw materials does impose a certain
> order,
> > but it uses energy to do so, and this energy is no longer as available
> for
> > useful work, so thermodynamics is upheld.
> >
> > Also, the organization within organisms is determined by "Whatever works
> in
> > the environment.", aka natural selection. This is a strongly non-random
> > factor affecting evolution, but the environment may be largely
> determined by
> > random factors and ordinary actions of natural law. For example, imagine
> a
> > computer program that randomly generated mazes and another that used
> random
> > processes to solve the mazes. The results of the second program are
> tightly
> > constrained by the first, but the overall system relies on mathematical
> > randomness.
> > Something else that can make randomness look non-random is the
> interaction
> > of random variation with a constraint. A studied example of this comes
> from
> > muricid snails. Many today are big and spiny and popular with
> collectors.
> > The oldest known ones are small and smooth. Has the group evolved
> > directionally? Not necessarily, just on this information. There are also
> > small and/or smooth ones today. You can't have fewer than zero spines,
> so
> > random variation starting from one extreme of small and smooth would
> > gradually fill a range of size and spininess. The average size and
> > spininess would grow over time and then level off as the range of
> > possibiities became exhausted. During some periods of time, this is what
> we
> > see happening. However, at other points (in time and space), there are
> > distinct increases in average size and /or spininess, probably
> reflecting
> > predation as an agent of natural selection.
> >
> > Another problem is exactly how one quantifies the degree of complexity
> or
> > variability in organisms. The particular example involving Gould I have
> in
> > mind comes from the question of comparing the Cambrian radiation with
> later
> > diversity. If we look at arthropods, today there are butterflies,
> worm-like
> > or sac-like parasites, barnacles, lobsters, fleas, crabs, centipedes,
> > spiders, etc. That's a lot of variation in form. However, all living
> forms
> > fit into just four basic groups according to the number, type, and
> > sequence of appendages (antennae, mouthparts, legs, etc.) and major
> > divisions of the body; a fifth category died out with the end-Permian
> > extinction. In the Cambrian, there are a number of more or less
> shrimp-like
> > things that don't fit into any of the five post-Cambrian groups, not to
> > mention some things that are not quite true arthropods but rather are
> > transitions between modern phyla. Similar issues arise for other
> animals.
> > Which shows greater diversity? Depends on how you measure it.
> >
> > Nevertheless, there are several well-supported trends in evolution. The
> > next problem comes in trying to equate such trends with progress. All
> > purportedly evolution-based moral or social systems make such a claim.
> > However, as Prince Caspian pointed out, we must distinguish between
> Progress
> > and Going Bad. Likewise, Bob Thaves, in a Frank and Ernest cartoon,
> noted
> > the compatibility of evolution and the Peter Principle (things progress
> > until they reach a position beyond their capabilities and are then stuck
> in
> > a position of incompetence. It was based on observations of promotion in
> > business, government, academia, etc.). Equating evolution with progress
> or
> > thinking that organisms are in some way trying to evolve in a particular
> > direction is what is rejected in modern definitions of evolution as
> > ateleological, without goals. Think of another area of science. Gravity
> > does not have goals. Something on the floor is not more advanced than
> > something on a shelf. Even much scientific literature still makes such
> > claims about evolution, and it is fundamental to Marxism,
> evolution-invoking
> > eugenics, etc. The silliness of invoking evolution as progress, however,
> > can quickly be seen by considering multiple evolutionary trends.
> Numerous
> > vertebrates have reduced the number of digits for stronger feet and
> faster
> > running. Thus, we can make evolutionary progress by cutting off most of
> our
> > fingers and toes. Many parasites or sessile animals have evolved by
> > reducing the nervous system and muscles; parasites often simplify the
> > digestive system as well. This also is why "if evolution is true, why
> are
> > there still monkeys" is wrong.
> >
> > Even if one equates evolution with progress as a philosophical
> assumption,
> > it still remains necessary to justify which direction is claimed to be
> more
> > advanced. In practice, "more like me" is defined as advancement.
> However,
> > if someone not too much like me makes such a claim, it is not in my
> > evolutionary advantage to support it. I might, however, gain
> evolutionary
> > advantage by fooling some people into thinking that more like me is
> better.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dr. David Campbell
> > 425 Scientific Collections
> > University of Alabama
> > "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
> >
>
>
> Bill Hamilton
> William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
Received on Tue Apr 4 12:09:44 2006